What do you think?
Rate this book
The Continuum Concept
The Continuum Concept introduces the idea that in order to achieve optimal physical, mental and emotional development, human beings - especially babies - require the kind of instinctive nurturing as practiced by our ancient relatives. It is a true ‘back to basics’ approach to parenting.
Author Jean Liedloff spent two and-a-half years in the jungle deep in the heart of South America living with indigenous tribes and was astounded at how differently children are raised outside the Western world. She came to the realisation that essential child-rearing techniques such as touch, trust and community have been undermined in modern times, and in this book suggests practical ways to regain our natural well-being, for our children and ourselves.
Author Jean Liedloff spent two and-a-half years in the jungle deep in the heart of South America living with indigenous tribes and was astounded at how differently children are raised outside the Western world. She came to the realisation that essential child-rearing techniques such as touch, trust and community have been undermined in modern times, and in this book suggests practical ways to regain our natural well-being, for our children and ourselves.
Paperback
First published January 28, 1975
482 people are currently reading
5734 people want to read
About the author
Jean Liedloff
10 books42 followersJean Liedloff was an American author, born in New York, and best known for her 1975 book The Continuum Concept. She is the aunt of writer Janet Hobhouse, and is represented by the character Constance in Hobhouse's book "The Furies."
Born in New York City in 1926, as a teenager she attended the Drew Seminary for Young Women and began studying at Cornell University, but began her expeditions before she could graduate.
During a diamond-hunting expedition to Venezuela, she came into contact with an indigenous people named the Yequana. Over time she became fascinated with the Yequana, and made a decision to return to Venezuela to live with them. She wrote her book The Continuum Concept to describe her new understanding of how we have lost much of our natural well-being, and to show us practical ways to regain it for our children and for ourselves. Her book is based on her experiences while living with the Yequana, and discusses in particular their style of child-rearing and its fundamental effect on their later lives.
She was a founding member of The Ecologist magazine.
Liedloff died on March 15, 2011 in Sausalito, California.
Born in New York City in 1926, as a teenager she attended the Drew Seminary for Young Women and began studying at Cornell University, but began her expeditions before she could graduate.
During a diamond-hunting expedition to Venezuela, she came into contact with an indigenous people named the Yequana. Over time she became fascinated with the Yequana, and made a decision to return to Venezuela to live with them. She wrote her book The Continuum Concept to describe her new understanding of how we have lost much of our natural well-being, and to show us practical ways to regain it for our children and for ourselves. Her book is based on her experiences while living with the Yequana, and discusses in particular their style of child-rearing and its fundamental effect on their later lives.
She was a founding member of The Ecologist magazine.
Liedloff died on March 15, 2011 in Sausalito, California.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 364 reviews
January 9, 2011
I had high expectations for this book, as it is an oft-mentioned title in Attachment Parenting circles and has its own following as a parenting style in and of itself. (Continuum Concept parenting and Attachment Parenting are not the same thing, but there is some overlap.) Though the book does contain many intriguing ideas, I found myself overall quite disappointed.
The book, written in 1975 (with an introduction added in 1985), is based on the author's experiences spending extended time with an indigenous people in Venezuela, the Yequana. Based on her observations, she concludes that their way of life is more in harmony with the natural way that humans are meant to live, in accordance with the evolution of our species, than the lifestyle of modern Western society. She claims that the natural state of the Yequana is happiness, a primary example being that they do not have a word for "work" and they enjoy everything they do. The cause? She places huge emphasis on the importance of infants being held in their mothers' arms, 100% of the time, during the first 6-8 months of life, and attributes most of the unhappiness of modern civilization to the fact that infants in Western society are largely deprived of this "in arms" experience. She devotes a significant portion of the book to describing the subjective experience that she imagines an infant in each respective culture goes through, and the remainder of the book critiquing specific aspects of modern child-rearing and explaining how specific personality characteristics and modern problems are specifically the result of being deprived of the "in arms" stage.
The fatal flaw of this book is that the ideas presented are purely the theories and opinions of the author. The author has absolutely no qualifications other than her personal experience with this particular group of people: she is not an anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, scientist, researcher, doctor, or any other relevant qualification. Throughout the entire book there was only one citation. In fact she is overtly anti-intellectual, stating that our overuse of intellect in the modern world has, to our detriment, taken over our natural instincts as humans. There may be some truth to this, but I found it ironic that someone writing a book primarily about the importance of following one's instinct in the care of infants is not even a mother herself. There were certainly several parts of her book that my "motherly instinct" just flat out rejected. Some of the claims of the author have since been shown to be true by research, however others contradict the findings of research. Her own cultural bias is apparent in her assumption that homosexuality is a pathology and the assumption of the existence of "God". However the opinions of the author in this book are presented as if they are objective fact. It would have been more accurate if every sentence in the book was preceded with "I think," "I believe," or "My theory is."
For instance, the lengthy descriptions of an infant's experience in the indigenous and then the modern world are presented as factual descriptions, when in fact they are her interpretations of her observations, colored by her opinions. In short, they stem from her imagination. Maybe there is truth to them, but maybe not; there is no way of knowing. I wonder if Yequana mothers, let alone infants of either culture, would agree with these descriptions. While interesting to think about as a hypothesis or possibility, they don't have much value beyond the speculative.
Another big problem with this book is that all of the author's assumptions about human nature and what is natural to our species come from her (unscientific) experience and observation of just one indigenous culture. Anthropologists have shown us that there is actually quite significant diversity among indigenous cultures, and Liedloff herself comments how different the neighboring indigenous cultures were from the Yequana. All cultures are unique, and adapted to their particular circumstances. She clearly idealizes all the features of the Yequana culture and assumes that modern culture would be better off by adopting them, but this is not necessarily the case. For example, she critiques parents for "chasing" their toddlers to keep them from harm or from wandering off, and the example she gives is of seeing modern parents do this in New York's Central Park! Maybe if I lived in an indigenous village surrounded by familiar places and trusted community members I could allow a toddler to wander as they pleased, but in a dangerous urban environment like NEW YORK CITY, I would definitely be keeping a protective watch on my child. The comparison of such different settings just doesn't make sense.
A specific critique I have of the parenting style that the author advocates is her critique of modern Western parents being too "child-centered." While I agree with the importance of a child being immersed in the normal life of adults and society, I don't think this should be done at the exclusion of direct interaction and attention, which in my experience babies both need and thrive on. In addition to some "out of arms" time being important to physical development (such as learning to crawl and sit, which start gradually from a very young age), I think that direct interaction and attention are a quite natural way of welcoming a child into the family and community, and communicating to them their inherent worth as a person. The way Liedloff describes it, she seems to advocate just completely ignoring young babies as one goes about their daily life. Not only do I think this is not healthy for the baby or the parent-child bond, but anyone who has ever had a baby can tell you it's not realistic. Babies have constant needs and are completely dependent on their caregivers to fulfill them- eating, sleeping, comforting, and toileting, are all things babies cannot do themselves, let alone laundry, bathing, and other tasks that are inherent to baby care. But the biggest disagreement I have with the author's criticism to being "child-centered" is that it directly contradicts one of the most central aspects of Attachment Parenting, being responsive to your child. Research has demonstrated the importance of caretakers being attentive to an infant's cues and responding in a caring, consistent way in order to establish a secure attachment. It is one of the central tenants of Attachment Parenting and its importance has been demonstrated in psychological research.
That said, I did find many of the author's ideas quite intriguing. For example, I agree with the author about the importance of keeping young babies close to their mothers' bodies at nearly all times. Indeed, the importance of this has been demonstrated by studies done on touch, attachment, co-sleeping, and so forth. However, I think she isolates this particular issue excessively, rather than acknowledging it as one ingredient in an overall approach to parenting. Other important factors include growing up in an environment of unconditional love, acceptance, and belonging, caretakers who respond in a consistent and caring way, positive examples and relationships with family and community, breastfeeding, and a positive birth experience, to name a few. Just carrying your baby all the time is not enough; all aspects of parenting have an impact on babies and the adults that they grow into. I thought her interpretation of personality quirks to be very interesting, for example a person being very messy because they are seeking the fulfilment of deprived infantile needs (though someone taking care of them and loving them unconditionally despite their flaws). My subjective opinion (note my qualification!) is that this might very well be the case for some people, however it must be considered in light of the whole person, which is complex and individual.
Another idea I liked about the book was the concept that children, like all humans, are social animals and they do what they think is expected of them. They instinctively want to fit in and please their parents. She gives an example that sometimes parents give them messages like "Don't touch that, you'll hurt yourself" and the message the children hear is that the parent expects them to hurt themselves at some point, and so they do. I do think that expectations are powerful and the language we use is important. But again, this is one factor in a complex system of influences, and needs to be considered in context.
It appears even the things I like about the book have serious qualifications. So if there is so much to criticize about this book, why does it have such a strong following? What made it so popular?
I think the reason is that it makes the reader question the status quo of the way we treat babies in our society in a powerful way. This was probably groundbreaking in the time it was written, and is still groundbreaking today for people who haven't been exposed to ideas outside of the mainstream. Just the idea of putting oneself in the "shoes" of a baby and imagining what they might go through is important. Asking the question of how humans evolved and how this impacts the needs of babies is important. Questioning our cultural practices and considering more traditional practices, like slings instead of strollers, or co-sleeping instead of cribs, is important. So in summary I think this is a great book to open minds and get people thinking, but because it is so grotesquely subjective and unscientific, it should not be looked to in itself as a source of information or a guide to parenting practices. Fortunately there are many other books available now which cover these topics and make use of more objective research methods through fields like anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology. For instance, I recommend Our Babies, Ourselves, which is a more scientific version of the topics broached in The Continuum Concept.
The book, written in 1975 (with an introduction added in 1985), is based on the author's experiences spending extended time with an indigenous people in Venezuela, the Yequana. Based on her observations, she concludes that their way of life is more in harmony with the natural way that humans are meant to live, in accordance with the evolution of our species, than the lifestyle of modern Western society. She claims that the natural state of the Yequana is happiness, a primary example being that they do not have a word for "work" and they enjoy everything they do. The cause? She places huge emphasis on the importance of infants being held in their mothers' arms, 100% of the time, during the first 6-8 months of life, and attributes most of the unhappiness of modern civilization to the fact that infants in Western society are largely deprived of this "in arms" experience. She devotes a significant portion of the book to describing the subjective experience that she imagines an infant in each respective culture goes through, and the remainder of the book critiquing specific aspects of modern child-rearing and explaining how specific personality characteristics and modern problems are specifically the result of being deprived of the "in arms" stage.
The fatal flaw of this book is that the ideas presented are purely the theories and opinions of the author. The author has absolutely no qualifications other than her personal experience with this particular group of people: she is not an anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, scientist, researcher, doctor, or any other relevant qualification. Throughout the entire book there was only one citation. In fact she is overtly anti-intellectual, stating that our overuse of intellect in the modern world has, to our detriment, taken over our natural instincts as humans. There may be some truth to this, but I found it ironic that someone writing a book primarily about the importance of following one's instinct in the care of infants is not even a mother herself. There were certainly several parts of her book that my "motherly instinct" just flat out rejected. Some of the claims of the author have since been shown to be true by research, however others contradict the findings of research. Her own cultural bias is apparent in her assumption that homosexuality is a pathology and the assumption of the existence of "God". However the opinions of the author in this book are presented as if they are objective fact. It would have been more accurate if every sentence in the book was preceded with "I think," "I believe," or "My theory is."
For instance, the lengthy descriptions of an infant's experience in the indigenous and then the modern world are presented as factual descriptions, when in fact they are her interpretations of her observations, colored by her opinions. In short, they stem from her imagination. Maybe there is truth to them, but maybe not; there is no way of knowing. I wonder if Yequana mothers, let alone infants of either culture, would agree with these descriptions. While interesting to think about as a hypothesis or possibility, they don't have much value beyond the speculative.
Another big problem with this book is that all of the author's assumptions about human nature and what is natural to our species come from her (unscientific) experience and observation of just one indigenous culture. Anthropologists have shown us that there is actually quite significant diversity among indigenous cultures, and Liedloff herself comments how different the neighboring indigenous cultures were from the Yequana. All cultures are unique, and adapted to their particular circumstances. She clearly idealizes all the features of the Yequana culture and assumes that modern culture would be better off by adopting them, but this is not necessarily the case. For example, she critiques parents for "chasing" their toddlers to keep them from harm or from wandering off, and the example she gives is of seeing modern parents do this in New York's Central Park! Maybe if I lived in an indigenous village surrounded by familiar places and trusted community members I could allow a toddler to wander as they pleased, but in a dangerous urban environment like NEW YORK CITY, I would definitely be keeping a protective watch on my child. The comparison of such different settings just doesn't make sense.
A specific critique I have of the parenting style that the author advocates is her critique of modern Western parents being too "child-centered." While I agree with the importance of a child being immersed in the normal life of adults and society, I don't think this should be done at the exclusion of direct interaction and attention, which in my experience babies both need and thrive on. In addition to some "out of arms" time being important to physical development (such as learning to crawl and sit, which start gradually from a very young age), I think that direct interaction and attention are a quite natural way of welcoming a child into the family and community, and communicating to them their inherent worth as a person. The way Liedloff describes it, she seems to advocate just completely ignoring young babies as one goes about their daily life. Not only do I think this is not healthy for the baby or the parent-child bond, but anyone who has ever had a baby can tell you it's not realistic. Babies have constant needs and are completely dependent on their caregivers to fulfill them- eating, sleeping, comforting, and toileting, are all things babies cannot do themselves, let alone laundry, bathing, and other tasks that are inherent to baby care. But the biggest disagreement I have with the author's criticism to being "child-centered" is that it directly contradicts one of the most central aspects of Attachment Parenting, being responsive to your child. Research has demonstrated the importance of caretakers being attentive to an infant's cues and responding in a caring, consistent way in order to establish a secure attachment. It is one of the central tenants of Attachment Parenting and its importance has been demonstrated in psychological research.
That said, I did find many of the author's ideas quite intriguing. For example, I agree with the author about the importance of keeping young babies close to their mothers' bodies at nearly all times. Indeed, the importance of this has been demonstrated by studies done on touch, attachment, co-sleeping, and so forth. However, I think she isolates this particular issue excessively, rather than acknowledging it as one ingredient in an overall approach to parenting. Other important factors include growing up in an environment of unconditional love, acceptance, and belonging, caretakers who respond in a consistent and caring way, positive examples and relationships with family and community, breastfeeding, and a positive birth experience, to name a few. Just carrying your baby all the time is not enough; all aspects of parenting have an impact on babies and the adults that they grow into. I thought her interpretation of personality quirks to be very interesting, for example a person being very messy because they are seeking the fulfilment of deprived infantile needs (though someone taking care of them and loving them unconditionally despite their flaws). My subjective opinion (note my qualification!) is that this might very well be the case for some people, however it must be considered in light of the whole person, which is complex and individual.
Another idea I liked about the book was the concept that children, like all humans, are social animals and they do what they think is expected of them. They instinctively want to fit in and please their parents. She gives an example that sometimes parents give them messages like "Don't touch that, you'll hurt yourself" and the message the children hear is that the parent expects them to hurt themselves at some point, and so they do. I do think that expectations are powerful and the language we use is important. But again, this is one factor in a complex system of influences, and needs to be considered in context.
It appears even the things I like about the book have serious qualifications. So if there is so much to criticize about this book, why does it have such a strong following? What made it so popular?
I think the reason is that it makes the reader question the status quo of the way we treat babies in our society in a powerful way. This was probably groundbreaking in the time it was written, and is still groundbreaking today for people who haven't been exposed to ideas outside of the mainstream. Just the idea of putting oneself in the "shoes" of a baby and imagining what they might go through is important. Asking the question of how humans evolved and how this impacts the needs of babies is important. Questioning our cultural practices and considering more traditional practices, like slings instead of strollers, or co-sleeping instead of cribs, is important. So in summary I think this is a great book to open minds and get people thinking, but because it is so grotesquely subjective and unscientific, it should not be looked to in itself as a source of information or a guide to parenting practices. Fortunately there are many other books available now which cover these topics and make use of more objective research methods through fields like anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology. For instance, I recommend Our Babies, Ourselves, which is a more scientific version of the topics broached in The Continuum Concept.
April 27, 2007
What is a more perfect picture in this world than a contented baby in loving parent arms? Leidloff claim that this is the place to be if you are an infant; that the modern traditions of swings, cribs, playpens, and other child-holding-devices go against our nature and evolution, and can do great damage to a person by denying an infant’s automatic expectations.
I agree with much of what she says. Obviously, babies are made to be held. We are the only primates that willing sets our young down for (often) hours at a time. We are the only primates that purposefully ignores our young’s cues for food/comfort/attention/etc. (Just let him cry…he’s fine…) We are the only primates that listen to the advice of “experts” rather than follow our own finely tuned and well evolved instincts when it comes to caring for our young.
It’s an interesting book. Parts made me cry. Parts made me scoff. Parts made me want to throw the book across the room and throttle Ms. Leidloff. Parts resonated very strongly with me. She’s on to something, but I am only inclined to trust her so far…given that she has never had her own children. It’s supremely easy to talk expertly about theories. It’s an entirely different game to see those theories in action.
I think the most amazing part was her conceptualization of the modern infant born in a hospital and placed in a crib, instead of in where it instinctively knows he belongs (in Mama’s arms).
Reading this made me think about the many times parents have told me (as their childcare provider) to allow their infant to cry itself to sleep. I was deeply grateful for my safe homebirth and my son that is rarely allowed to cry without our loving attention and cuddles (only in the car seat…we run many errands on the bus now). It is no wonder infants sound like torture victims when allowed to cry alone. How horrible that must be.
I have such a strong, mama-bear, visceral reaction to the very idea – and a holy horror of myself for the many times I have listened to parents instructions instead of my own heart and let babies cry – that I can’t seem to get cohesive sentences out just now.
There are many places where Leidloff is full of crap…but anyone who writes a “raise your child this way” kind of a book is full of crap. If I were writing a book about caring for children it would go something like this:
Every child is completely different and you are always flying by the seat of your pants. You’ll work it out. Just keep on loving them. That’s all.
But that’s all personal opinion. If anyone else has thoughts on Leidloff’s concepts, I would be extremely interested…
I agree with much of what she says. Obviously, babies are made to be held. We are the only primates that willing sets our young down for (often) hours at a time. We are the only primates that purposefully ignores our young’s cues for food/comfort/attention/etc. (Just let him cry…he’s fine…) We are the only primates that listen to the advice of “experts” rather than follow our own finely tuned and well evolved instincts when it comes to caring for our young.
It’s an interesting book. Parts made me cry. Parts made me scoff. Parts made me want to throw the book across the room and throttle Ms. Leidloff. Parts resonated very strongly with me. She’s on to something, but I am only inclined to trust her so far…given that she has never had her own children. It’s supremely easy to talk expertly about theories. It’s an entirely different game to see those theories in action.
I think the most amazing part was her conceptualization of the modern infant born in a hospital and placed in a crib, instead of in where it instinctively knows he belongs (in Mama’s arms).
Reading this made me think about the many times parents have told me (as their childcare provider) to allow their infant to cry itself to sleep. I was deeply grateful for my safe homebirth and my son that is rarely allowed to cry without our loving attention and cuddles (only in the car seat…we run many errands on the bus now). It is no wonder infants sound like torture victims when allowed to cry alone. How horrible that must be.
I have such a strong, mama-bear, visceral reaction to the very idea – and a holy horror of myself for the many times I have listened to parents instructions instead of my own heart and let babies cry – that I can’t seem to get cohesive sentences out just now.
There are many places where Leidloff is full of crap…but anyone who writes a “raise your child this way” kind of a book is full of crap. If I were writing a book about caring for children it would go something like this:
Every child is completely different and you are always flying by the seat of your pants. You’ll work it out. Just keep on loving them. That’s all.
But that’s all personal opinion. If anyone else has thoughts on Leidloff’s concepts, I would be extremely interested…
April 23, 2008
I first read this book seven years ago, as a new mom, and just reread it for book group. First of all, I am appalled at the state of mind I must have been in when I first read it, cause boy did I swallow it hook, line, and sinker. My brain must have been in a hormone-induced state of mush. I mean, "evidence" suggests that homosexuality may be caused by non-continuum care. I didn't even notice this before! Or how awesome it is that the girls' in the indigenous cultures greatest joy stems from the pleasure of bringing their father a drink of water. Yeah, that resembles what I want for my girls.
Anyway, I still find the book unsettling for a couple of truths, as in true to my experience. Most moms I know find motherhood isolating. Most find it horribly disorienting. Most find it oppressively difficult. We all come through it, find ways to cope, rearrange our lives and psyches and eventually sort out our lives again. Nonetheless, I do wish I lived in a culture where these states of motherhood were not something to be overcome, a culture where motherhood is never even associated with these states of being. But now, much less then when I read this for the first time, I haven't a clue as to what to do with this insight.
Anyway, I still find the book unsettling for a couple of truths, as in true to my experience. Most moms I know find motherhood isolating. Most find it horribly disorienting. Most find it oppressively difficult. We all come through it, find ways to cope, rearrange our lives and psyches and eventually sort out our lives again. Nonetheless, I do wish I lived in a culture where these states of motherhood were not something to be overcome, a culture where motherhood is never even associated with these states of being. But now, much less then when I read this for the first time, I haven't a clue as to what to do with this insight.
May 9, 2011
This book was a very bad read. So bad it belongs in it's own 'so bad it's good' category - I laughed out loud at some bits. Here (in my opinion) is why:
1. The evidence presented for the book's main premise - that western traditions of raising children are damaging and a primary cause of drug abuse, homosexuality, social isolation and all manner of other societal evils - is hardly scientific. The author's singular observation of a south American tribe in the jungle suffices.
2. Dare you bring a child up in traditional western ways e.g. use a pram, cot or playpen? The prelude explains you will - or should - feel very guilty, now you have been introduced to 'correct' child raising techniques.
3. The author's belief the stone age Yuqana tribe instinctively know how modern society should raise their children is at best naive, at worst misanthropic.
4. Some of the observational evidence provided to support the author's theory beggars belief. The author illustrates the evilness of playpens with an anecdote about a Yuqana tribesman who builds a crude playpen out of sticks for his children. When he realises the playpen is in fact no good for his children, he destroys it immediately. But why did this tribesman build a playpen out of the blue, without ever having seen or used one before? Why did he feel the need to build one, if in fact the tribe's child-raising techniques to date were so idyllic? It's never explained and I find myself wondering whether this example - and others - are fabricated 'evidence' to support the author's theories. (By the way, have any scientists returned to the jungle to test the author's continuum concepts?)
5. The book's impersonation of an evidence-based anthropological study via use of big words and opaque, convoluted ( and sometimes contradictory ) language is laughable. Wish I still had a copy of the book to give you some examples of Liedloff's more brilliant passages.
Needless to say, I am not opposed to Liedloff's baby rearing recommendations - baby wearing, co-sleeping, breastfeeding on demand, etc. Rather, it's her execution of an argument for them that I have trouble with.
1. The evidence presented for the book's main premise - that western traditions of raising children are damaging and a primary cause of drug abuse, homosexuality, social isolation and all manner of other societal evils - is hardly scientific. The author's singular observation of a south American tribe in the jungle suffices.
2. Dare you bring a child up in traditional western ways e.g. use a pram, cot or playpen? The prelude explains you will - or should - feel very guilty, now you have been introduced to 'correct' child raising techniques.
3. The author's belief the stone age Yuqana tribe instinctively know how modern society should raise their children is at best naive, at worst misanthropic.
4. Some of the observational evidence provided to support the author's theory beggars belief. The author illustrates the evilness of playpens with an anecdote about a Yuqana tribesman who builds a crude playpen out of sticks for his children. When he realises the playpen is in fact no good for his children, he destroys it immediately. But why did this tribesman build a playpen out of the blue, without ever having seen or used one before? Why did he feel the need to build one, if in fact the tribe's child-raising techniques to date were so idyllic? It's never explained and I find myself wondering whether this example - and others - are fabricated 'evidence' to support the author's theories. (By the way, have any scientists returned to the jungle to test the author's continuum concepts?)
5. The book's impersonation of an evidence-based anthropological study via use of big words and opaque, convoluted ( and sometimes contradictory ) language is laughable. Wish I still had a copy of the book to give you some examples of Liedloff's more brilliant passages.
Needless to say, I am not opposed to Liedloff's baby rearing recommendations - baby wearing, co-sleeping, breastfeeding on demand, etc. Rather, it's her execution of an argument for them that I have trouble with.
June 14, 2012
I really enjoyed this book, for the first half. It was interesting to read about the observations between western culture and the indian tribe's culture, but here it ends... She starts talking about homosexuality as being a reaction to a cruel father or a mincing mother... WTH. That small niggling in the back of my mind that had been whispering throughout the book came out screaming during that passage (yes pun intended), WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS TO BACK THIS UP?
Just because much of the book cooperates with my child rearing belief, doesn't mean that it's good.
She assumes a lot of things without, seemingly, any other basis than her observations... and while I agree with a lot of the thing she writes...I cannot in any way recommend anyone read it after this passage on homosexuality. It's just dumb. You can't make a homosexual, there are plenty of men and women with similar upbringings who aren't homosexuals... It's just assuming to much...
I would always recommend Our babies ourselves over this book, it has a more scientific approach and the research is based on far more societies than The continuum concept which is based on two. Assumptions should not be promoted as facts...
Just because much of the book cooperates with my child rearing belief, doesn't mean that it's good.
She assumes a lot of things without, seemingly, any other basis than her observations... and while I agree with a lot of the thing she writes...I cannot in any way recommend anyone read it after this passage on homosexuality. It's just dumb. You can't make a homosexual, there are plenty of men and women with similar upbringings who aren't homosexuals... It's just assuming to much...
I would always recommend Our babies ourselves over this book, it has a more scientific approach and the research is based on far more societies than The continuum concept which is based on two. Assumptions should not be promoted as facts...
October 21, 2008
Every parent/parent to be should read this book. Very insightful and compelling. I learned so much about why I am the way I am, and why other people are the way they are. I feel it has set me on a path towards healing, and I am relieved to know that I can help prevent my child from being a victim of our culture. The basic idea of the continuum concept is that there is a natural way that we are all meant to develop, though civilized life has torn us away from it. When an infant doesn't get what he needs, it leads to problems for the rest of his life. Hold your baby until HE says he is ready to let go!
January 23, 2008
If you have a baby or are going to have a baby, I consider this mandatory reading. Actually, whether or not you're having a baby, I think this is a very interesting read. The way we become parents and raise babies in our culture is historically quite strange and I think we would do ourselves all some good if we took some of the principles of this book to heart. Here's a quote:
"It is no secret that the 'experts' have not discovered how to live satisfactorily, but the more they fail, the more they attempt to bring the problems under the sole influence of reason and disallow what reason cannot understand or control."
And another...
"We are now fairly brought to heel by the intellect; our inherent sense of what is good for us has been undermined to the point where we are barely aware of its working and cannot tell an original impulse from a distorted one."
"It is no secret that the 'experts' have not discovered how to live satisfactorily, but the more they fail, the more they attempt to bring the problems under the sole influence of reason and disallow what reason cannot understand or control."
And another...
"We are now fairly brought to heel by the intellect; our inherent sense of what is good for us has been undermined to the point where we are barely aware of its working and cannot tell an original impulse from a distorted one."
October 21, 2018
*If you are interested in this subject (how hunter-gatherers parent) I recommend Hunter-Gather Childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental and Cultural Perspectives and The Lifeways of Hunter Gatherers.
*If you are interested in different ways children can be raised, Preschool in Three Cultures is interesting. As is Huck's Raft: A History of American Childhood.
*Also it is interesting to note that many aspects of hunter-gatherer parenting are similar to aspects of parenting in low socio-economic circles. Read American Individualisms: Child Rearing and Social Class in Three Neighborhoods (Culture, Mind, and Society) if that sounds interesting.
*If you want to be a better mom, read Dear Parents: Caring for Infants with Respect, The Secret of Childhood, or Escape from Childhood (depending on the age of your kids).
The above books are far more worth reading than this one.
This book, the Continuum Concept, is an uneducated woman ranting about what she thinks a tribe of Native Americans think about raising babies. Then she rants about her assumptions that all native peoples were parented exactly like this tribe. She thinks this tribe has happy babies and all babies would be happier if they were parented this one way and there would be world peace too. It's a pretty ridiculous book mostly full of emotionally charged and guilt-ridden lectures that have a lot more to do with her own issues than the reality of hunter-gatherer childhoods and lives.
I did find her anecdotes about the Yequana fascinating (if questionable in their accuracy). Here are almost all of them since most of her book was not actually about the natives:
"One Yequana boy I knew came to me clinging to his mother and screaming at the top of his lungs from a toothache. He was about ten years old and so unfailingly self-reliant and helpful that I had supposed him to be highly disciplined. To my civilized view, he seemed a master of keeping his feelings to himself, and I therefore expected that in the present situation he would be making a terrific effort not to cry or to let his companions see him in such a state. But it was clear that he was making no attempt to suppress his reaction to the pain or his need for the primordial comfort of his mother's arms. No one fussed but everyone understood. A few of his playmates stood by to watch me extract the tooth. They did not have any difficulty in accepting his sudden departure from their gallant ranks into infantile dependence upon his mother; there was no hint of mockery from them, none of shame from him. His mother was there, quietly available, while he submitted to the extraction. He flinched and shrieked even louder several times when I touched the tooth, but he never pulled away or looked angry at me for causing the pain. When at last I worked the tooth free of the gum and stopped the hole with gauze, he was white in the face and went to his hammock exhausted. In less than an hour he reappeared alone, the color back in his cheeks and his equanimity restored. He said nothing, but smiled and poked about nearby for a few minutes to show me he was well, then wandered off to join the other boys."
"Another time it was a man of about twenty: I was doing my best to excise the beginnings of gangrene from his toe by flashlight. The pain must have been excruciating. While offering no resistance to my scraping the wound with his hunting knife, he wept without any sign of restraint on his wife's lap. She, like the little boy's mother, was completely relaxed, not putting herself in her husband's place at all, but serenely accessible, as he buried his face in her body when the pain was greatest or rolled his head from side to side om her lap as he sobbed. The eventual presence of about half the village at the scene did not appear to affect his reaction either toward self-control or dramatization."
"I was present at the first moments of one little girl's working life. She was about two years old. I had seen her with the women and girls, playing as they grated manioc in a trough. Now she was taking a piece of manioc from the pile and rubbing it against the grater of a girl near her. The chunk was too big; she dropped it several times trying to draw it across the rough board. An affectionate smile and a smaller piece of manioc came form her neighbor, and her mother, ready for the inevitable impulse to show itself, handed her a tiny grating board of her own. The little girl had seen the women grating as long as she could remember and immediately rubbed the nubbin up and down her board like the others. She lost interest in less than a minute and ran off, leaving her little grater in the trough and no noticeable inroads on the manioc. No one made her feel her gesture was funny or a "surprise"; the women did, indeed, expect it sooner or later, as they are all familiar with the fact that children do join in the culture, though their approach and pace are dictated by individual forces within themselves. That the end result will be social, cooperative and entirely voluntary is not in question."
"Caretaking, like assistance, is by request only. Feeding to nourish the body and cuddling to nourish the soul are neither proffered nor withheld, but are always available, simply and gracefully, as a matter of course.... Ideally, giving the child an example, or lead, to follow is not done expressly to influence him, but means doing what one has to do normally: not giving special attention to the child but creating the atmosphere of minding one's own business by way of priority, only noticing the child when he requires it and then no more than is useful."
"A Yequana tot would not dream of straying from his mother on a forest trail, for she does not look behind to see whether he is following, she does not suggest there is a choice to be made, or that it is her job to keep them together; she only slows her pace to one he can maintain. Knowing this, the babe will cry out if he cannot keep up for one reason or another."
"It is clear that they [young children] are imitative, cooperative and inclined to preserve the individual and the species, but they also include the specifics as knowing how to care for infants and having the ability to do so. To give the profound maternal urge in little girls no quarter, to channel it off to dolls when there are real infants about, is among other things a serious disservice to the children of the little girl when she grows up. Even before she can understand the instructions from her own mother, a little girl behaves instinctively toward infants int he precise manner required by infants since time immemorial. When she is old enough to consider alternative methods, she is already a long-standing expert in baby care and does not feel there is any advantage in thinking about it. She foes on throughout her childhood taking care of babies whenever she can, in her own family or among her neighbors, and by the time she marries. not only has nothing to discuss with the Doctor Spocks, but also has two strong arms and a repertoire of positions and movements with which babies can be held...."
"The notion of ownership of other persons is absent among the Yequana. The idea that this is "my child" does not exist. Deciding what another person should do, no matter what his age, is outside the Yequana vocabulary of behaviors. There is great interest in what everyone does, but no impulse to influence--let alone coerce--anyone. A child's will is his motive force. There is no slavery--for how else can one describe imposing one's will on another and coercion by threat or punishment?"
[An outsider child was adjusting to the village.] "Sometimes after he started walking, he hit other children. Interestingly, the other children regarded him without emotion; the idea of aggressiveness was so foreign to them that they took it as though they had been struck by a tree branch or from some other natural cause; they never dreamed of striking back, and went on about their games without even excluding Wididi."
*If you are interested in different ways children can be raised, Preschool in Three Cultures is interesting. As is Huck's Raft: A History of American Childhood.
*Also it is interesting to note that many aspects of hunter-gatherer parenting are similar to aspects of parenting in low socio-economic circles. Read American Individualisms: Child Rearing and Social Class in Three Neighborhoods (Culture, Mind, and Society) if that sounds interesting.
*If you want to be a better mom, read Dear Parents: Caring for Infants with Respect, The Secret of Childhood, or Escape from Childhood (depending on the age of your kids).
The above books are far more worth reading than this one.
This book, the Continuum Concept, is an uneducated woman ranting about what she thinks a tribe of Native Americans think about raising babies. Then she rants about her assumptions that all native peoples were parented exactly like this tribe. She thinks this tribe has happy babies and all babies would be happier if they were parented this one way and there would be world peace too. It's a pretty ridiculous book mostly full of emotionally charged and guilt-ridden lectures that have a lot more to do with her own issues than the reality of hunter-gatherer childhoods and lives.
I did find her anecdotes about the Yequana fascinating (if questionable in their accuracy). Here are almost all of them since most of her book was not actually about the natives:
"One Yequana boy I knew came to me clinging to his mother and screaming at the top of his lungs from a toothache. He was about ten years old and so unfailingly self-reliant and helpful that I had supposed him to be highly disciplined. To my civilized view, he seemed a master of keeping his feelings to himself, and I therefore expected that in the present situation he would be making a terrific effort not to cry or to let his companions see him in such a state. But it was clear that he was making no attempt to suppress his reaction to the pain or his need for the primordial comfort of his mother's arms. No one fussed but everyone understood. A few of his playmates stood by to watch me extract the tooth. They did not have any difficulty in accepting his sudden departure from their gallant ranks into infantile dependence upon his mother; there was no hint of mockery from them, none of shame from him. His mother was there, quietly available, while he submitted to the extraction. He flinched and shrieked even louder several times when I touched the tooth, but he never pulled away or looked angry at me for causing the pain. When at last I worked the tooth free of the gum and stopped the hole with gauze, he was white in the face and went to his hammock exhausted. In less than an hour he reappeared alone, the color back in his cheeks and his equanimity restored. He said nothing, but smiled and poked about nearby for a few minutes to show me he was well, then wandered off to join the other boys."
"Another time it was a man of about twenty: I was doing my best to excise the beginnings of gangrene from his toe by flashlight. The pain must have been excruciating. While offering no resistance to my scraping the wound with his hunting knife, he wept without any sign of restraint on his wife's lap. She, like the little boy's mother, was completely relaxed, not putting herself in her husband's place at all, but serenely accessible, as he buried his face in her body when the pain was greatest or rolled his head from side to side om her lap as he sobbed. The eventual presence of about half the village at the scene did not appear to affect his reaction either toward self-control or dramatization."
"I was present at the first moments of one little girl's working life. She was about two years old. I had seen her with the women and girls, playing as they grated manioc in a trough. Now she was taking a piece of manioc from the pile and rubbing it against the grater of a girl near her. The chunk was too big; she dropped it several times trying to draw it across the rough board. An affectionate smile and a smaller piece of manioc came form her neighbor, and her mother, ready for the inevitable impulse to show itself, handed her a tiny grating board of her own. The little girl had seen the women grating as long as she could remember and immediately rubbed the nubbin up and down her board like the others. She lost interest in less than a minute and ran off, leaving her little grater in the trough and no noticeable inroads on the manioc. No one made her feel her gesture was funny or a "surprise"; the women did, indeed, expect it sooner or later, as they are all familiar with the fact that children do join in the culture, though their approach and pace are dictated by individual forces within themselves. That the end result will be social, cooperative and entirely voluntary is not in question."
"Caretaking, like assistance, is by request only. Feeding to nourish the body and cuddling to nourish the soul are neither proffered nor withheld, but are always available, simply and gracefully, as a matter of course.... Ideally, giving the child an example, or lead, to follow is not done expressly to influence him, but means doing what one has to do normally: not giving special attention to the child but creating the atmosphere of minding one's own business by way of priority, only noticing the child when he requires it and then no more than is useful."
"A Yequana tot would not dream of straying from his mother on a forest trail, for she does not look behind to see whether he is following, she does not suggest there is a choice to be made, or that it is her job to keep them together; she only slows her pace to one he can maintain. Knowing this, the babe will cry out if he cannot keep up for one reason or another."
"It is clear that they [young children] are imitative, cooperative and inclined to preserve the individual and the species, but they also include the specifics as knowing how to care for infants and having the ability to do so. To give the profound maternal urge in little girls no quarter, to channel it off to dolls when there are real infants about, is among other things a serious disservice to the children of the little girl when she grows up. Even before she can understand the instructions from her own mother, a little girl behaves instinctively toward infants int he precise manner required by infants since time immemorial. When she is old enough to consider alternative methods, she is already a long-standing expert in baby care and does not feel there is any advantage in thinking about it. She foes on throughout her childhood taking care of babies whenever she can, in her own family or among her neighbors, and by the time she marries. not only has nothing to discuss with the Doctor Spocks, but also has two strong arms and a repertoire of positions and movements with which babies can be held...."
"The notion of ownership of other persons is absent among the Yequana. The idea that this is "my child" does not exist. Deciding what another person should do, no matter what his age, is outside the Yequana vocabulary of behaviors. There is great interest in what everyone does, but no impulse to influence--let alone coerce--anyone. A child's will is his motive force. There is no slavery--for how else can one describe imposing one's will on another and coercion by threat or punishment?"
[An outsider child was adjusting to the village.] "Sometimes after he started walking, he hit other children. Interestingly, the other children regarded him without emotion; the idea of aggressiveness was so foreign to them that they took it as though they had been struck by a tree branch or from some other natural cause; they never dreamed of striking back, and went on about their games without even excluding Wididi."
July 22, 2009
This book was very interesting, and definitely worth reading if you have/are going to have a baby. Take the best and leave the rest. The author spent some years with a tribe of Brazilian natives, and makes all of her conclusions based on her observations there. She says that packing your baby around in a baby carrier, and co-sleeping, and basically keeping baby near you at all times, meets a psychological need that both mother and baby have to be close to each other; she says it eliminates postpartum depression, and helps babies develop into capable, confident children and adults. I packed both of my babies until they were crawling, and co-slept for about six months before introducing the crib, and so far, have observed nothing that refutes the argument. My kids are both independent, happy, and have no separation anxiety. And I never had any postpartum issues. That was my experience, but I didn't do any of that stuff because it was the "right" way. (In fact, most people said it was wrong.) I did it because it felt natural and good. It met both of our needs. So, this book? I'd like to see some unbiased research into the subject. And since this book was written in the 'Seventies, and many people have read it and applied the principles, more research could be done. The book itself isn't perfectly convincing. I'm not huge into credentials, or anything, and a Ph.D definitely doesn't qualify somebody as a genius, so I'm willing to listen to her, and consider her ideas. But prepare yourself for a few over-excited, opinionated rampages. There's also the fact that she did very little additional research, and didn't have any children of her own. Often she cites experiences she had with pet monkeys. Come on, sister! But until that day when "studies show" I feel like these are principles worth applying, just because they feel right in your gut.
March 22, 2017
This is one of the most influential books I've ever read. The friend who gave it to me said, "This was the book that turned me into a thinking person."
Instead of speculating about what does or doesn't work for children based on research or educated guesses, this books takes us into the lives of a highly successful culture in South America that actually thrives at making people happy, connected and energetic.
Instead of speculating about what does or doesn't work for children based on research or educated guesses, this books takes us into the lives of a highly successful culture in South America that actually thrives at making people happy, connected and energetic.
March 23, 2015
Jean Liedloff was a New Yorker who went to Europe and pursued modeling and journalism work. She met some Italians who were leaving for the jungles of Venezuela to hunt for diamonds. On a whim, she joined their expedition. Over the course of five expeditions, she spent two and a half years living with Stone Age people. As she bounced back and forth between the modern world and wild freedom, she became acutely aware of the staggering differences between the two ways of life.
The natives were “the happiest people I have ever seen.” She found their lack of unhappiness to be spooky. The adults maintained a high state of social harmony — even when everyone was drunk. Their children were all well-behaved, never argued, never hit each other, never had tantrums, never suffered boredom, and were never punished by their parents.
Returning to the modern world was always a ghastly experience, because the people were so strikingly unhappy. Why? Liedloff explored this question in her book, The Continuum Concept. It compares wild people to civilized people through the eyes of an eyewitness reporter, and tries to explain how communities of the same species could be as different as night and day.
Liedloff observed that the misery of civilized people began shortly after birth, when the newborn was immediately carried away from its mother, placed in a crib in the nursery, and left to scream. Welcome to civilization, Bubba! The sense of wellbeing enjoyed in the womb came to an abrupt end at birth, and most of these kids would never again recover it.
The Indians, on the other hand, raised their children in accordance with ancient instincts — a specific sequence of normal developmental experiences that Liedloff called the human continuum. From the moment of their birth, newborns were held and nursed and loved — and this warm, secure, continuous contact lasted for months, until the child indicated that it was ready to begin the creeping and crawling phase. Raised in the Indian manner, the kids lived with a sense of wellbeing throughout their entire lives. They were happy.
Our animal instincts are very much in tune with our evolutionary journey. In the civilized world, “primitive” instincts were disregarded, and society was dominated by intellect. The Indians were intelligent, and they knew how to reason, but for them intellect was a servant of instinct. The rise of civilization corresponded with the rise of intellect. Unbridled intellect is the father of unstable societies, like the one outside your window.
Today, civilized mothers are so removed from natural life that they actually have to read books by childrearing “experts” like Dr. Spock to learn how to raise their young. But when these non-continuum instructions are followed, civilized mothers “produce children they cannot love, who grow up like themselves, anti-self, antisocial, incapable of giving, destined forever to go hungry.”
Indian children, raised via time-proven instincts, develop normally, in a sequence designed by evolution. Civilized children do not. We miss vital developmental steps in childhood, and this frequently leads to adults who have infantile components in their personalities, for their entire lives. Here is the most striking paragraph in the book:
“Man can ‘survive’ in appallingly anti-continuum conditions, but his well-being, his joy, his fulfillment as a whole human being, can be lost. From many points of view he might be better off dead, for the life force, in its ceaseless tending toward repair of damage and completion of developmental phases, among its instruments employs anxiety, pain, and an array of other ways of signaling that things are wrong. Unhappiness in all its forms is the result. In civilization, a frequent outcome of the operating of the system is constant misery.”
She wasn’t fond of modern society. Liedloff eventually became a psychotherapist, and she used what she had learned to help some people reduce their inner pain. She didn’t discover miracle cures, but she believed that some degree of healing was possible for some people. Her book has helped many new mothers avoid making some of the classic mistakes.
She presents us with compelling descriptions of both ways of life, and these fit nicely with studies done by many others. The symptoms of our illness are numerous and easy to see. But her diagnosis is primarily focused on the child-rearing process, and I suspect that this might be too narrow.
There are many other major differences between wild societies and civilization. Wild people live in wild lands filled with wild animals, and they spend most of their time outdoors. They rarely experience strangers, crowds, or machines. They are not controlled by others, they are free. Their sense of rightness is not suffocated by contact with school systems, corporate systems, religious systems, or greedy, exploitive, dishonest people. Civilization damages us in numerous ways, throughout our lives.
The good news here is that we can quit blaming our parents for screwing us up, because the entire society is screwed up. “All one can discover from horizon to horizon are victims of victims.” The bad news is that we are locked into powerful, unhealthy patterns of living, and damaged parents create damaged children. There are no simple solutions. The good news is that Peak Cheap Energy is going to disrupt our patterns of living, and one of the possible outcomes is positive, beneficial change. Liedloff provides us with some important pointers for the road ahead.
The natives were “the happiest people I have ever seen.” She found their lack of unhappiness to be spooky. The adults maintained a high state of social harmony — even when everyone was drunk. Their children were all well-behaved, never argued, never hit each other, never had tantrums, never suffered boredom, and were never punished by their parents.
Returning to the modern world was always a ghastly experience, because the people were so strikingly unhappy. Why? Liedloff explored this question in her book, The Continuum Concept. It compares wild people to civilized people through the eyes of an eyewitness reporter, and tries to explain how communities of the same species could be as different as night and day.
Liedloff observed that the misery of civilized people began shortly after birth, when the newborn was immediately carried away from its mother, placed in a crib in the nursery, and left to scream. Welcome to civilization, Bubba! The sense of wellbeing enjoyed in the womb came to an abrupt end at birth, and most of these kids would never again recover it.
The Indians, on the other hand, raised their children in accordance with ancient instincts — a specific sequence of normal developmental experiences that Liedloff called the human continuum. From the moment of their birth, newborns were held and nursed and loved — and this warm, secure, continuous contact lasted for months, until the child indicated that it was ready to begin the creeping and crawling phase. Raised in the Indian manner, the kids lived with a sense of wellbeing throughout their entire lives. They were happy.
Our animal instincts are very much in tune with our evolutionary journey. In the civilized world, “primitive” instincts were disregarded, and society was dominated by intellect. The Indians were intelligent, and they knew how to reason, but for them intellect was a servant of instinct. The rise of civilization corresponded with the rise of intellect. Unbridled intellect is the father of unstable societies, like the one outside your window.
Today, civilized mothers are so removed from natural life that they actually have to read books by childrearing “experts” like Dr. Spock to learn how to raise their young. But when these non-continuum instructions are followed, civilized mothers “produce children they cannot love, who grow up like themselves, anti-self, antisocial, incapable of giving, destined forever to go hungry.”
Indian children, raised via time-proven instincts, develop normally, in a sequence designed by evolution. Civilized children do not. We miss vital developmental steps in childhood, and this frequently leads to adults who have infantile components in their personalities, for their entire lives. Here is the most striking paragraph in the book:
“Man can ‘survive’ in appallingly anti-continuum conditions, but his well-being, his joy, his fulfillment as a whole human being, can be lost. From many points of view he might be better off dead, for the life force, in its ceaseless tending toward repair of damage and completion of developmental phases, among its instruments employs anxiety, pain, and an array of other ways of signaling that things are wrong. Unhappiness in all its forms is the result. In civilization, a frequent outcome of the operating of the system is constant misery.”
She wasn’t fond of modern society. Liedloff eventually became a psychotherapist, and she used what she had learned to help some people reduce their inner pain. She didn’t discover miracle cures, but she believed that some degree of healing was possible for some people. Her book has helped many new mothers avoid making some of the classic mistakes.
She presents us with compelling descriptions of both ways of life, and these fit nicely with studies done by many others. The symptoms of our illness are numerous and easy to see. But her diagnosis is primarily focused on the child-rearing process, and I suspect that this might be too narrow.
There are many other major differences between wild societies and civilization. Wild people live in wild lands filled with wild animals, and they spend most of their time outdoors. They rarely experience strangers, crowds, or machines. They are not controlled by others, they are free. Their sense of rightness is not suffocated by contact with school systems, corporate systems, religious systems, or greedy, exploitive, dishonest people. Civilization damages us in numerous ways, throughout our lives.
The good news here is that we can quit blaming our parents for screwing us up, because the entire society is screwed up. “All one can discover from horizon to horizon are victims of victims.” The bad news is that we are locked into powerful, unhealthy patterns of living, and damaged parents create damaged children. There are no simple solutions. The good news is that Peak Cheap Energy is going to disrupt our patterns of living, and one of the possible outcomes is positive, beneficial change. Liedloff provides us with some important pointers for the road ahead.
April 2, 2014
Liedloff is often called the mother of attachment parenting, and lots of parents I trust recommended this book to me. Her basic premise can very easily be summed up: Babies should be carried “in arms” as much as possible while the mother (or other parent) goes about her daily life until baby is able to crawl and explore their world on their own. Fine. I can agree to this. Out of this very simple concept, Liedloff, who, far as I can tell, has no anthropological training aside from the fact that she, as a young woman, lived with a group of natives (or “stone age Indians” as the book calls them) in Ecuador, creates a whole book in which she pins everything that ails civilization, from any little sense of dissatisfaction to heroin addiction, on modern parenting that separates baby from mother. The book is often quite boring, preachy, and old-fashioned: She seems to revere the strict gender roles of the native people she lives with, urges mothers to not work so that they may be with their baby “in arms,” continually refers to her subjects as “savages” and Westerners as “civilized,” and “blames” poor parenting on “turning people homosexual.” I can appreciate the parenting advice while still rejecting the form in which the advice comes.
July 16, 2010
I was expecting much more from this book. While some interesting insights are offered about parenting across cultures, the author's hypotheses are hugely flawed. Backed by very little, if any, science, the author bases a "new" theory of child care to be used by Western parents on her observation of the Yequanna tribe in a South American jungle. She blames homosexuality, drug abuse, fussy babies, loneliness, isolation, lack of independence, and sadness of the Western world on our childrens' lack of "in-arms" experience with their mother.
While I wholly support attachment parenting styles (such as frequent carrying of your baby), many of Liedloff's assumptions and suggestions are naive. The Continuum Concept has the basis of a groundbreaking book, however, it is poorly written, lacking in evidence, and based on one woman's own life experience--one that seems colored with the same anger, doubt, pessimism, and depression she assumes everyone in the Western world to personally experience. I count myself out of this contingent and maybe that's why I just can't support the theories the book lays out.
While I wholly support attachment parenting styles (such as frequent carrying of your baby), many of Liedloff's assumptions and suggestions are naive. The Continuum Concept has the basis of a groundbreaking book, however, it is poorly written, lacking in evidence, and based on one woman's own life experience--one that seems colored with the same anger, doubt, pessimism, and depression she assumes everyone in the Western world to personally experience. I count myself out of this contingent and maybe that's why I just can't support the theories the book lays out.
September 21, 2016
While I can understand how other reviewers might see Liedoff's writing as uncited, I do believe as a first-time mom that this book helped me trust the instincts knew I had. We live in a culture that in some aspects pits mother against baby, and tells us that a "good" baby is well trained. I never felt this to be true, even though my baby was an incredibly high-needs baby (from my perspective). Regardless, I never withheld touch, love, milk, or affection. And although I was exhausted most of the time throughout that first year, jean's words motivated me to stay true to that inner wisdom. So perhaps she isn't "qualified" to speak authoritatively on psychological and cultural topics such as these; I don't need a certification beside someone's name to validate their credibility. Sometimes life is a better teacher than an educational institution could ever hope to be. I'm thankful that Liedoff has shared her experience and observations with us. So I give her book four stars for the impact it's had on my life and early mothering.
January 3, 2011
When keeping in mind that the author is neither a parent or an anthropologist, this book gives an incredibly different, and much needed point of view on baby-rearing. A must-read by any parent, whether you agree 100% or not, everyone with an intent to raise a child should give this book a read in order to see another perspective. The insights in this book are invaluable when forging your own parental style, one that frees the mother to pursue her own needs while at the same time giving the baby what he needs as well. A huge a-ha! moment for me, unfortunately not until my fourth (and final) baby was over a year old.
November 14, 2010
Entirely changed the way I view parenting.
October 19, 2016
Jean Liedloff’s book “The Continuum Concept” offers westerners a look at what the lives of contented and functional human beings look like. It offers much more, as well. The author refers to her time spent with Indians living in the Venezuelan rainforest as “unlearning,” principally because the life of the people she found herself among was so clearly superior in every way to what she’s known. They didn’t have a concept for “work,” using a corruption of the Spanish “trabajar” when they had to communicate what the westerners spent their time doing, abhorred coercion of any kind, even in regards to their children, and didn’t seem to experience unhappiness. Here is an illustrative story from early in the book:
…Cesar had been “adopted” by Venezuelans when very young and had gone to live with them in a small town. He was sent to school, learned to read and write, and was reared as a Venezuelan. When he was grown, he came, like many of the men of those Guianese towns, to the Upper Caroni to try his luck at diamond hunting. He was working with a group of Venezuelans when he was recognized by Mundo, chief of the Tauripans at Guayparu.
“Were you not taken to live with Jose Grande?” Mundo asked.
“I was brought up by Jose Grande,” said Cesar, according to the story.
“Then you have come back to your own people. You are a Tauripan,” said Mundo.
Whereupon Cesar, after a great deal of thought, decided that he would be better off living as an Indian than as a Venezuelan and came to Arepuchi where Pepe lived.
For five years Cesar lived with Pepe’s family, marrying a pretty Tauripan woman and becoming the father of a little girl. As Cesar did not like to work, he and his wife and daughter ate the food grown on Pepe’s plantation. Cesar was delighted to find Pepe did not expect him to clear a garden of his own or even help with the work in his. Pepe enjoyed working and since Cesar did not, the arrangement suited everyone.
Cesar’s wife liked joining the other women and girls in cutting and preparing cassava to eat, but all Cesar liked was hunting tapir and occasionally other game. After a couple of years he developed a taste for fishing and added his catches to those of Pepe and his sons, who always liked to fish and who supplied his family as generously as their own.
Just before we arrived, Cesar decided to clear a garden of his own, and Pepe helped with every detail, from choosing the site to felling and burning the trees. Pepe enjoyed it all the more because he and his friend talked and joked the whole time.
Cesar, after five years’ assurance, felt that no one was pushing him into the project ans was free to enjoy working as Pepe, or any other Indian.
Everyone at Arepuchi was glad, Pepe told us, because Cesar had been growing discontented and irritable. “He wanted to make a garden of his own”–Pepe laughed–”but he didn’t know it himself!” Pepe though it hilarious that anyone should not know that he wanted to work.
“The Continuum Concept” is an unaccountably obscure book, an injustice which I hope will be remedied. Jean Liedloff is, I believe, unaware or uninterested in the details of ideology and politics discussed above, but her book is a perfect and necessary part of any attempt to understand why our world has become as bleak as it has, and what might be done about it, if anything. While “The Continuum Concept” is in large part about child rearing, it is far from a parenting manual. Simply, the author happened to observe what life is like for people who are mostly untouched by centuries of western learning, living in small groups composed of a number of extended families as we all used to do until we adopted agriculture, animal husbandry, and the rest.
Among the book’s points is that we in the west have done ourselves a disservice by denying our instinctive know-how as far as child-rearing is concerned. We swaddle babies from the minute they are born, tell ourselves that their cries are OK to ignore, and set up a lifelong battle of wills between ourselves and our children when all they really want to do is follow us around and do right by us. J.L. was struck by the lack of conflict, intergenerational or otherwise, between the Indians, by the way the children never seemed to cry, by the lack of parenting done among these people:
When he goes about on hands and knees, a baby can travel at a fair speed. Among the Yequana, I watched uneasily as one creeper rushed up and stopped at the edge of a pit five feet deep that had been dug for mud to make walls. In his progress about the compound, he did this several times a day. With the inattentiveness of an animal grazing at the edge of a cliff, he would tumble to a sitting position, as often as not facing away from the pit. Occupied with a stick or stone or his fingers or toes, he played and rolled about in every direction, seemingly heedless of the pit, until one realized he landed everywhere but the danger zone. The non-intellect-directed mechanisms of self-preservation worked unfailingly, and, being so precise in their calculations, functioned equally well at any distance from the pit, starting from the very edge. Unattended, or, more often, at the periphery of attention of a group of children playing with the same lack of respect for the pit, he took charge of his own relationships to all the surrounding possibilities.
Perhaps the most profound revelation offered by “The Continuum Concept” is that humans are, above all, social animals. The worst thing that anyone can do to anyone else is to banish them, right on par with death. Among a species as social as we humans are, it takes special effort to induce disobedience in our children. Much of the effort has been expended already on our behalf by our parents’ and grandparents’ generations, and by a society set on molding people into workers and consumers rather than human beings. We don’t have to work hard to raise our children to be insecure, confused, defiant and petulant, yet at the same time self-absorbed and possessing of over-inflated egos. We will raise our kids as we ourselves were raised.
The implication of our species’ innate sociability are myriad, but the entire notion can be summarized, albeit rather vaguely, by saying that in a social setting that agrees with our species’ time-tested needs and habits, little or no further work is required to maintain the system in an equilibrium. Children need no parenting, they will merely follow the example of adults and older children and raise themselves. Policing isn’t necessary, because group shunning will get the offender to change his or her behavior with less conflict and stress than any jailhouse could, and of their own free will, and permanently! People will find themselves having less and being more, and the result of this effortlessness will be greater sanity and contentment.
Obviously, this is no prescription for how to improve (or even maintain) the world we live in today, since there’s no way 7 billion people can live like hunters and gatherers. Perhaps if we took all the land horded by the rich, tore out the useless crops grown for export or ethanol, and had everyone plant subsistence crops, 7 billion people may have a chance of surviving the present century. Assuming we also somehow stopped and then reversed the warming of the planet we set into motion in the 20th century, tore out all the dams to restore fisheries and wetlands, got rid of all the guns and bombs since their presence makes it highly unlikely people will have the fruits of their spring and summer labor to sustain them through fall and winter– someone will always find it easier to just steal stuff if they have the means. And did all this right away, since time’s not on our side at this point. Let’s just say the odds are against the present situation being sustainable in any shape or form.
But if you want to know what’s gone wrong, read this book: it will show you what your life would be like if you were to be happy. Perhaps bits and pieces of the knowledge it offers can make it into your miserable 21st century existence to make nominal improvements. Sadly, this may be the limit to what we can do now, even with the best information possible. It may be time to admit we fucked up, close down the mines and the factories, and start over. God bless all of us.
…Cesar had been “adopted” by Venezuelans when very young and had gone to live with them in a small town. He was sent to school, learned to read and write, and was reared as a Venezuelan. When he was grown, he came, like many of the men of those Guianese towns, to the Upper Caroni to try his luck at diamond hunting. He was working with a group of Venezuelans when he was recognized by Mundo, chief of the Tauripans at Guayparu.
“Were you not taken to live with Jose Grande?” Mundo asked.
“I was brought up by Jose Grande,” said Cesar, according to the story.
“Then you have come back to your own people. You are a Tauripan,” said Mundo.
Whereupon Cesar, after a great deal of thought, decided that he would be better off living as an Indian than as a Venezuelan and came to Arepuchi where Pepe lived.
For five years Cesar lived with Pepe’s family, marrying a pretty Tauripan woman and becoming the father of a little girl. As Cesar did not like to work, he and his wife and daughter ate the food grown on Pepe’s plantation. Cesar was delighted to find Pepe did not expect him to clear a garden of his own or even help with the work in his. Pepe enjoyed working and since Cesar did not, the arrangement suited everyone.
Cesar’s wife liked joining the other women and girls in cutting and preparing cassava to eat, but all Cesar liked was hunting tapir and occasionally other game. After a couple of years he developed a taste for fishing and added his catches to those of Pepe and his sons, who always liked to fish and who supplied his family as generously as their own.
Just before we arrived, Cesar decided to clear a garden of his own, and Pepe helped with every detail, from choosing the site to felling and burning the trees. Pepe enjoyed it all the more because he and his friend talked and joked the whole time.
Cesar, after five years’ assurance, felt that no one was pushing him into the project ans was free to enjoy working as Pepe, or any other Indian.
Everyone at Arepuchi was glad, Pepe told us, because Cesar had been growing discontented and irritable. “He wanted to make a garden of his own”–Pepe laughed–”but he didn’t know it himself!” Pepe though it hilarious that anyone should not know that he wanted to work.
“The Continuum Concept” is an unaccountably obscure book, an injustice which I hope will be remedied. Jean Liedloff is, I believe, unaware or uninterested in the details of ideology and politics discussed above, but her book is a perfect and necessary part of any attempt to understand why our world has become as bleak as it has, and what might be done about it, if anything. While “The Continuum Concept” is in large part about child rearing, it is far from a parenting manual. Simply, the author happened to observe what life is like for people who are mostly untouched by centuries of western learning, living in small groups composed of a number of extended families as we all used to do until we adopted agriculture, animal husbandry, and the rest.
Among the book’s points is that we in the west have done ourselves a disservice by denying our instinctive know-how as far as child-rearing is concerned. We swaddle babies from the minute they are born, tell ourselves that their cries are OK to ignore, and set up a lifelong battle of wills between ourselves and our children when all they really want to do is follow us around and do right by us. J.L. was struck by the lack of conflict, intergenerational or otherwise, between the Indians, by the way the children never seemed to cry, by the lack of parenting done among these people:
When he goes about on hands and knees, a baby can travel at a fair speed. Among the Yequana, I watched uneasily as one creeper rushed up and stopped at the edge of a pit five feet deep that had been dug for mud to make walls. In his progress about the compound, he did this several times a day. With the inattentiveness of an animal grazing at the edge of a cliff, he would tumble to a sitting position, as often as not facing away from the pit. Occupied with a stick or stone or his fingers or toes, he played and rolled about in every direction, seemingly heedless of the pit, until one realized he landed everywhere but the danger zone. The non-intellect-directed mechanisms of self-preservation worked unfailingly, and, being so precise in their calculations, functioned equally well at any distance from the pit, starting from the very edge. Unattended, or, more often, at the periphery of attention of a group of children playing with the same lack of respect for the pit, he took charge of his own relationships to all the surrounding possibilities.
Perhaps the most profound revelation offered by “The Continuum Concept” is that humans are, above all, social animals. The worst thing that anyone can do to anyone else is to banish them, right on par with death. Among a species as social as we humans are, it takes special effort to induce disobedience in our children. Much of the effort has been expended already on our behalf by our parents’ and grandparents’ generations, and by a society set on molding people into workers and consumers rather than human beings. We don’t have to work hard to raise our children to be insecure, confused, defiant and petulant, yet at the same time self-absorbed and possessing of over-inflated egos. We will raise our kids as we ourselves were raised.
The implication of our species’ innate sociability are myriad, but the entire notion can be summarized, albeit rather vaguely, by saying that in a social setting that agrees with our species’ time-tested needs and habits, little or no further work is required to maintain the system in an equilibrium. Children need no parenting, they will merely follow the example of adults and older children and raise themselves. Policing isn’t necessary, because group shunning will get the offender to change his or her behavior with less conflict and stress than any jailhouse could, and of their own free will, and permanently! People will find themselves having less and being more, and the result of this effortlessness will be greater sanity and contentment.
Obviously, this is no prescription for how to improve (or even maintain) the world we live in today, since there’s no way 7 billion people can live like hunters and gatherers. Perhaps if we took all the land horded by the rich, tore out the useless crops grown for export or ethanol, and had everyone plant subsistence crops, 7 billion people may have a chance of surviving the present century. Assuming we also somehow stopped and then reversed the warming of the planet we set into motion in the 20th century, tore out all the dams to restore fisheries and wetlands, got rid of all the guns and bombs since their presence makes it highly unlikely people will have the fruits of their spring and summer labor to sustain them through fall and winter– someone will always find it easier to just steal stuff if they have the means. And did all this right away, since time’s not on our side at this point. Let’s just say the odds are against the present situation being sustainable in any shape or form.
But if you want to know what’s gone wrong, read this book: it will show you what your life would be like if you were to be happy. Perhaps bits and pieces of the knowledge it offers can make it into your miserable 21st century existence to make nominal improvements. Sadly, this may be the limit to what we can do now, even with the best information possible. It may be time to admit we fucked up, close down the mines and the factories, and start over. God bless all of us.
March 1, 2014
Multe mamici lauda aceasta carte fara sa stie ca autoarea nu a avut niciodata copii. Deci nu a experimentat pe propria-i piele sentimentele, greutatile si viata extrem de placuta dar adeseori dificila de mamica. Nevasta mea, proaspata mamica a citit aceasta cartea si a avut mari asteptari de la ea. Ca a dezamagit-o foarte tare si ca s-a infuriat de-a dreptul pe autoare puteti vedea mai jos. Punctul meu de vedere. se bazeaza pe ceea ce nevasta mea mi-a povestit si pe concluziile pe care le-a tras in urma lecturarii, este foarte franc si dur: Jean Liedloff este un fel de Kim-Jong-Il al parenting-ului. Aceast introducere imi apartine.
Mai jos recenzia, excelenta zic eu, scrisa de extraordinara mamica care este sotia mea:
" Am aşteptat cu nerăbdare să primesc cartea după ce îi citisem recomandările pe fel de fel de site-uri şi bloguri care promovează Attachment Parenting-ul pe care am ajuns să îl văd nu ca cea mai bună formă de parenting, ci ca singura. Ştiam concluziile cărţii şi voiam să găsesc încă o mână bună de argumente pe care să le servesc celor care îmi oferă sfaturi de fiecare dată când mă port (scandalos!) de parcă singurul mod de a-mi linişti copilul ar fi să îi ofer ce îşi doreşte. (Da, am ajuns să nu mai pot tolera sfaturile nesolicitate de la fel de fel de indivizi şi individe, farmaciste şi asistente, pediatri plictisiţi şi neinformaţi, prieteni şi cunoştinţe ale unor cunoştinţe etc. care cred că faptul că ai crescut un copil te califică în a-i indruma pe ceilalţi. Nu, nu e nici pe departe aşa, iar în cele câteva luni de când a venit Vlăduţ am ajuns să cred că cei mai mulţi copii de astăzi sau de-ai generaţiilor trecute au ajuns să supravieţuiască tratamentului la care au fost supuşi de părinţi, şi nu să crească propriu-zis).
Ştiam, deci, că urmează să înţeleg de ce psihologic şi mai ales antropologic, trebuie să îti porţi copilul în braţe (aveam şi nevoie să înţeleg de ce de fiecare dată când ieşeam cu Vladuţ în oraş în cărucior ajungeam să mă întorc cu el în braţe) şi cum se face că un comportament natural şi relaxat poate fi benefic pentru copil atâta vreme cât el stă mereu aproape de mamă. Evident, eram a priori de acord cu toate acestea.
Ei bine, nu am reuşit să găsesc nici cel mai vag argument. Autoarea, din păcate, nu cunoaşte, pe lângă conceptul continuum, nici conceptele de întemeiere logică, de justificare, raţionament, premisă, concluzie sau raţiune. Cartea ar trebui, cu siguraţă studiată în şcoli, dar la cursurile de logică şi retorică. Nu am găsit până acum nici un autor de manuale suficient de inspirat încât să compună atâtea sofisme şi erori formale, iar Aristotel însuşi nu cred că şi-ar fi dorit mai mult pentru a ilustra toate tipurile de erori logice pe care le gândise. Un profesor bun ar face slalom printre sofisme, arătându-le elevilor: ”deschideti la pagina 20, acolo veţi gasi un non-sequitur, apoi la pagina 41, unde veti vedea cea mai grozavă falsă dilemă pe care am întâlnit-o şi mergeti mai departe, la 52 unde o pseudo-analogie de toată frumuseţea ne poate face să înţelegem cum argumentele pot fi apropape-corecte, adică greşite, iar dacă ajungeţi la pagina 65, veţi vedea cât de brutal este introdusă concluzia direct în premisă şi când veti compara paginile 37 şi 109 veţi găsi chiar şi o minunată contradicţie, dintre cele care rar se mai fac în zilele noastre. Acum singuri! Primul care găseşte 20 de greşeli de argumetare ia nota 10, iar pentru acasă fiecare trebuie să caute încă 50 de erori. Nu copiaţi, sunt suficiente pentru fiecare!”.
Nu o să intru în detaliile fiecărui tip de eroare pentru că am facut deja o astfel de lucrare şi am realizat că poate fi extrem de plictisitoare pentru cei care nu sunt pasionaţi de logică, dar puteţi reţine că singurele propoziţii întemeiate corect în carte sunt complet nefolositoare pentru a justifica concluziile mari care, din păcate, se mai şi bazează pe asumpţii care nu sunt nici un moment judecate critic. Şi aici aş vrea să ma mai opresc pentru câteva fraze.
Cartea este, întreagă, o fabuloasă raţiune insuficientă. Autoarea îşi bazează concluziile pe studiul indienilor din satul Yekuana care par a fi emblematici pentru specia umană întrucât acolo nevoile şi aşteptările nou născuţilor sunt cât se poate de aproapiate celor autentice (deşi nu mi se explică de ce, înţeleg că nu este posibil ca aşteptările de la naştere şi potenţialul speciei umane să fi evoluat în ultimele două milenii. Pare-se că această perioadă este prea scurtă raportată la întreagă existenţă, dar de ce nu se poate ca toate acestea să fie evoluat într-o perioadă scurtă ca multe altele, nu ni se spune). Mi-e greu să pricep ce fel de cercetare ştiinţifică se face astfel (nici nu se gândeşte autoarea să ia în calcul condiţiile de mediu, de trai, încărcătura genetică sau măcar pe cea mai misterioasă, jungiană. Nimic. Singurul lucru luat în calcul este că indienii îşi ţin copiii în braţe, iar acesta este motivul pentru care modul lor de viaţă este atât de plăcut. Da, este foarte plăcut, recunosc) aşa cum mi-e greu să înţeleg cine ar fi tentat să îşi poarte copilul atâta vreme cât singul argument este că aşa fac indienii dintr-un sat din America de Sud, sat care se pare că a şi fost decimat de o boală căreia nu au putut să-i facă faţă. Parcă îmi vine să rămân în societatea asta nefericită care reuşeşte să îmi ţină copilul în viaţă. “Daţi-mi, daţi-mi strada-ngustă, unde gustă omul viaţa mai din plin, cu trăsuri, femei cochete şi cu fete încălţate cel puţin”, nu?
Autoarea mai aminteşte că a văzut un singur copil cu degetul în gură, dar s-a dovedit că şi acela fusese ţinut într-un spital în primele luni de viaţă pentru că avusese probleme. Hmmmm….adică tot la spital au ajuns şi ei…ce să mai zic? Păi aş vrea să zic ceva, totuşi: în mitologia egipteană zeul Hapocrate atestat în timpul noului regat (1550-1070 î.Hr) este forma juvenilă a lui Horus, zeu copil, reprezentat cu degetul în gură (!). Deci şi egiptenii antici fuseseră pervertiţi…nici nu mai ştiu care sunt aşteptările unui bebeluş, parcă m-am pierdut.
Apogeul nu e aici. Apogeul e în paginile în care autoarea justifică toate problemele omeneşti prin lipsa perioadei în braţe. Fiecare raţionament este o perlă, dar toate împreună fac cel mai halucinant mod de a argumenta discreţionar pe care l-am întâlnit vreodată. Nici o propoziţie nu se leagă de alta, asumpţiile sunt hilare şi concluziile nu decurg de nicăieri. Sinuciderea, homosexualitatea, consumul de droguri, divorţul, celibatul, jocul de golf, workaholismul, lenea, călătoria, înclinaţia spre studiu, arsurile şi câte şi mai câte sunt expresii ale lipsei experienţei esenţiale. Şi poate că sunt, dar modul în care autoarea justifică asta este de-a dreptul depresiv.
Aici profesorul de adineaori va spune: ”Vă voi arăta cum să argumentaţi că privarea de experienţă şuturi în fund la 1 an si 3 luni va duce la homosexualitate. Îmi întemeiez studiul pe un grup de indivizi format din vecinii mei de la apartamentul 15. Cei doi copii din această locaţie au fost trataţi la 1 an şi 3 luni cu uşoare şuturi în fund, iar până la vârsta de 15 ani ei au luat doar premiul întâi, ceea ce demonstrează că experienţa şuturi în fund este de dorit dar şi că face parte din continuumul speciei umane. Cei privaţi de această experienţă vor ajunge la maturitate să simtă nevoia de a primi şuturi în fund şi se vor refugia in primul lucru asemănător, devenind, astfel, homosexuali, detaliile vi le puteţi închipui şi voi. Uşor, nu? Doar un pic de imaginaţie. Acum singuri! Primul care îmi poate argumenta cum nevoia de şuturi în fund poate duce la tendinţa de a pune mâna pe sobă va lua 10. Pentru acasă trebuie să inventaţi o experienţă esenţială a cărei lipsă să explice hemoroizii, descoperirea particulelor subatomice, curlingul, creşterea euro şi tendinţa oamenilor de a cultiva mai mulţi morcovi decât păstârnac.”
Ar mai trebui poate să adaug că tot ce vrea să susţină Jean Liedloff a fost mult mai bine şi mai plăcut argumentat de Françoise Dolto, iar cărţile ei se găsesc cam prin orice librărie, nu trebuie să ţi le comanzi în franceză de pe unu-două site-uri şi că am scris toate acestea ţinându-mi copilul în braţe, aşa cum fac de obicei. "
Mai jos recenzia, excelenta zic eu, scrisa de extraordinara mamica care este sotia mea:
" Am aşteptat cu nerăbdare să primesc cartea după ce îi citisem recomandările pe fel de fel de site-uri şi bloguri care promovează Attachment Parenting-ul pe care am ajuns să îl văd nu ca cea mai bună formă de parenting, ci ca singura. Ştiam concluziile cărţii şi voiam să găsesc încă o mână bună de argumente pe care să le servesc celor care îmi oferă sfaturi de fiecare dată când mă port (scandalos!) de parcă singurul mod de a-mi linişti copilul ar fi să îi ofer ce îşi doreşte. (Da, am ajuns să nu mai pot tolera sfaturile nesolicitate de la fel de fel de indivizi şi individe, farmaciste şi asistente, pediatri plictisiţi şi neinformaţi, prieteni şi cunoştinţe ale unor cunoştinţe etc. care cred că faptul că ai crescut un copil te califică în a-i indruma pe ceilalţi. Nu, nu e nici pe departe aşa, iar în cele câteva luni de când a venit Vlăduţ am ajuns să cred că cei mai mulţi copii de astăzi sau de-ai generaţiilor trecute au ajuns să supravieţuiască tratamentului la care au fost supuşi de părinţi, şi nu să crească propriu-zis).
Ştiam, deci, că urmează să înţeleg de ce psihologic şi mai ales antropologic, trebuie să îti porţi copilul în braţe (aveam şi nevoie să înţeleg de ce de fiecare dată când ieşeam cu Vladuţ în oraş în cărucior ajungeam să mă întorc cu el în braţe) şi cum se face că un comportament natural şi relaxat poate fi benefic pentru copil atâta vreme cât el stă mereu aproape de mamă. Evident, eram a priori de acord cu toate acestea.
Ei bine, nu am reuşit să găsesc nici cel mai vag argument. Autoarea, din păcate, nu cunoaşte, pe lângă conceptul continuum, nici conceptele de întemeiere logică, de justificare, raţionament, premisă, concluzie sau raţiune. Cartea ar trebui, cu siguraţă studiată în şcoli, dar la cursurile de logică şi retorică. Nu am găsit până acum nici un autor de manuale suficient de inspirat încât să compună atâtea sofisme şi erori formale, iar Aristotel însuşi nu cred că şi-ar fi dorit mai mult pentru a ilustra toate tipurile de erori logice pe care le gândise. Un profesor bun ar face slalom printre sofisme, arătându-le elevilor: ”deschideti la pagina 20, acolo veţi gasi un non-sequitur, apoi la pagina 41, unde veti vedea cea mai grozavă falsă dilemă pe care am întâlnit-o şi mergeti mai departe, la 52 unde o pseudo-analogie de toată frumuseţea ne poate face să înţelegem cum argumentele pot fi apropape-corecte, adică greşite, iar dacă ajungeţi la pagina 65, veţi vedea cât de brutal este introdusă concluzia direct în premisă şi când veti compara paginile 37 şi 109 veţi găsi chiar şi o minunată contradicţie, dintre cele care rar se mai fac în zilele noastre. Acum singuri! Primul care găseşte 20 de greşeli de argumetare ia nota 10, iar pentru acasă fiecare trebuie să caute încă 50 de erori. Nu copiaţi, sunt suficiente pentru fiecare!”.
Nu o să intru în detaliile fiecărui tip de eroare pentru că am facut deja o astfel de lucrare şi am realizat că poate fi extrem de plictisitoare pentru cei care nu sunt pasionaţi de logică, dar puteţi reţine că singurele propoziţii întemeiate corect în carte sunt complet nefolositoare pentru a justifica concluziile mari care, din păcate, se mai şi bazează pe asumpţii care nu sunt nici un moment judecate critic. Şi aici aş vrea să ma mai opresc pentru câteva fraze.
Cartea este, întreagă, o fabuloasă raţiune insuficientă. Autoarea îşi bazează concluziile pe studiul indienilor din satul Yekuana care par a fi emblematici pentru specia umană întrucât acolo nevoile şi aşteptările nou născuţilor sunt cât se poate de aproapiate celor autentice (deşi nu mi se explică de ce, înţeleg că nu este posibil ca aşteptările de la naştere şi potenţialul speciei umane să fi evoluat în ultimele două milenii. Pare-se că această perioadă este prea scurtă raportată la întreagă existenţă, dar de ce nu se poate ca toate acestea să fie evoluat într-o perioadă scurtă ca multe altele, nu ni se spune). Mi-e greu să pricep ce fel de cercetare ştiinţifică se face astfel (nici nu se gândeşte autoarea să ia în calcul condiţiile de mediu, de trai, încărcătura genetică sau măcar pe cea mai misterioasă, jungiană. Nimic. Singurul lucru luat în calcul este că indienii îşi ţin copiii în braţe, iar acesta este motivul pentru care modul lor de viaţă este atât de plăcut. Da, este foarte plăcut, recunosc) aşa cum mi-e greu să înţeleg cine ar fi tentat să îşi poarte copilul atâta vreme cât singul argument este că aşa fac indienii dintr-un sat din America de Sud, sat care se pare că a şi fost decimat de o boală căreia nu au putut să-i facă faţă. Parcă îmi vine să rămân în societatea asta nefericită care reuşeşte să îmi ţină copilul în viaţă. “Daţi-mi, daţi-mi strada-ngustă, unde gustă omul viaţa mai din plin, cu trăsuri, femei cochete şi cu fete încălţate cel puţin”, nu?
Autoarea mai aminteşte că a văzut un singur copil cu degetul în gură, dar s-a dovedit că şi acela fusese ţinut într-un spital în primele luni de viaţă pentru că avusese probleme. Hmmmm….adică tot la spital au ajuns şi ei…ce să mai zic? Păi aş vrea să zic ceva, totuşi: în mitologia egipteană zeul Hapocrate atestat în timpul noului regat (1550-1070 î.Hr) este forma juvenilă a lui Horus, zeu copil, reprezentat cu degetul în gură (!). Deci şi egiptenii antici fuseseră pervertiţi…nici nu mai ştiu care sunt aşteptările unui bebeluş, parcă m-am pierdut.
Apogeul nu e aici. Apogeul e în paginile în care autoarea justifică toate problemele omeneşti prin lipsa perioadei în braţe. Fiecare raţionament este o perlă, dar toate împreună fac cel mai halucinant mod de a argumenta discreţionar pe care l-am întâlnit vreodată. Nici o propoziţie nu se leagă de alta, asumpţiile sunt hilare şi concluziile nu decurg de nicăieri. Sinuciderea, homosexualitatea, consumul de droguri, divorţul, celibatul, jocul de golf, workaholismul, lenea, călătoria, înclinaţia spre studiu, arsurile şi câte şi mai câte sunt expresii ale lipsei experienţei esenţiale. Şi poate că sunt, dar modul în care autoarea justifică asta este de-a dreptul depresiv.
Aici profesorul de adineaori va spune: ”Vă voi arăta cum să argumentaţi că privarea de experienţă şuturi în fund la 1 an si 3 luni va duce la homosexualitate. Îmi întemeiez studiul pe un grup de indivizi format din vecinii mei de la apartamentul 15. Cei doi copii din această locaţie au fost trataţi la 1 an şi 3 luni cu uşoare şuturi în fund, iar până la vârsta de 15 ani ei au luat doar premiul întâi, ceea ce demonstrează că experienţa şuturi în fund este de dorit dar şi că face parte din continuumul speciei umane. Cei privaţi de această experienţă vor ajunge la maturitate să simtă nevoia de a primi şuturi în fund şi se vor refugia in primul lucru asemănător, devenind, astfel, homosexuali, detaliile vi le puteţi închipui şi voi. Uşor, nu? Doar un pic de imaginaţie. Acum singuri! Primul care îmi poate argumenta cum nevoia de şuturi în fund poate duce la tendinţa de a pune mâna pe sobă va lua 10. Pentru acasă trebuie să inventaţi o experienţă esenţială a cărei lipsă să explice hemoroizii, descoperirea particulelor subatomice, curlingul, creşterea euro şi tendinţa oamenilor de a cultiva mai mulţi morcovi decât păstârnac.”
Ar mai trebui poate să adaug că tot ce vrea să susţină Jean Liedloff a fost mult mai bine şi mai plăcut argumentat de Françoise Dolto, iar cărţile ei se găsesc cam prin orice librărie, nu trebuie să ţi le comanzi în franceză de pe unu-două site-uri şi că am scris toate acestea ţinându-mi copilul în braţe, aşa cum fac de obicei. "
January 30, 2016
Cartea asta atâta mi-a fost recomandată ca până la urmă să nu rămân foarte încântată de ea. Sau nu știu. Poate va trebui s-o mai citesc odată, poate am s-o înțeleg mai altfel. Poate.
Nu contesc inteligența și personalitatea atipică a autoarei, dar cartea asta de multe ori mi s-a părut incoerentă. Un limbaj greoi, plină de sofisme și pe lângă toate astea mi se pare caraghios nu știu cum să "compari" civilizația sau modul de dezvoltare al nostru, tot de ține de educație, cultură, creșterea copiilor cu un trib din America de Sud, care sunt izolați de civilizație exact ca în epoca de piatră.
Ideea principală a cărții este că pentru a crește din punct de vedere emoțional, mental și spiritual nu avem nevoie de tot amalgamul de tehnologii, posibilități, și haosul format de societatea modernă, totul se reduce la ceva cu mult mai simplu decât ne-am fi imaginat noi: ca să fim fericiți nu trebuie decât să ne urmăm instinctele, să ne creștem copiii așa cum simțim. Fără a apela la tot ce ne oferă societatea la ora actuală.
Ce a remarcat-o cel mai mult pe autoare la acest trib, încă din primele momente de când a intrat în contact cu ei, a fost armonia și liniștea care dăinuia printre ei. Nu i-a văzut niciodată certându-se, niciun act de violență domestică, nici măcar atunci când bărbații consumau alcool nu erau răutăcioși. Copiii erau împăcați, relaxați, liniștiți, mamele își vedeau de treaburile "casnice", timp de 2 ani și ceva cât a stat printre ei nu a văzut nicio mamă să aibă depresie postnatală cum se întâlnește deseori la mamele de partea celaltă a baricadei.
Asta cu adevărat ne lipsește nouă societății moderne: sentimentul de împlinire și pace cu noi înșine, conchide autoarea cărții.
Ca concept sau ca idee mi se pare inedită o așa "comparație", dar noi demult am depășit aceste momente sau situații, prea evoluată societatea ca să aplece capul și să se ia după viața simplă și pacifistă a acelui trib. Cred că ideea pe care o promovează autorea ar fi mai binevenită pentru psihologi, școlile de pediatrie, etc. Nu cred că oamenii de rând ar înțelege acest concept și l-ar urma cu sfințenie.
În primul rând, pentru că cartea e scrisă tare sofisticat, nu cred că mulți părinți care o vor citi o să aibă răbdare să o ducă până la capăt.
Pe de altă parte, mă bucur că odată cu trecerea timpul unele practici din moși strămoși se păstrează și în ziua de azi: să nu lași copilul să plângă singur, să-l porți în brațe, în spate oriunde cu tine, să-l hrănești la cerere și nu când vrei tu, afecțiunea , mângâierile să fie la ordinea zilei, să nu-i dădăcești, să-i lași să-și folosească instinctele așa cum știu ei mai bine, etc.
Până la urmă am rămas cam încurcată de cartea asta, dar e bine și așa :)
Nu contesc inteligența și personalitatea atipică a autoarei, dar cartea asta de multe ori mi s-a părut incoerentă. Un limbaj greoi, plină de sofisme și pe lângă toate astea mi se pare caraghios nu știu cum să "compari" civilizația sau modul de dezvoltare al nostru, tot de ține de educație, cultură, creșterea copiilor cu un trib din America de Sud, care sunt izolați de civilizație exact ca în epoca de piatră.
Ideea principală a cărții este că pentru a crește din punct de vedere emoțional, mental și spiritual nu avem nevoie de tot amalgamul de tehnologii, posibilități, și haosul format de societatea modernă, totul se reduce la ceva cu mult mai simplu decât ne-am fi imaginat noi: ca să fim fericiți nu trebuie decât să ne urmăm instinctele, să ne creștem copiii așa cum simțim. Fără a apela la tot ce ne oferă societatea la ora actuală.
Ce a remarcat-o cel mai mult pe autoare la acest trib, încă din primele momente de când a intrat în contact cu ei, a fost armonia și liniștea care dăinuia printre ei. Nu i-a văzut niciodată certându-se, niciun act de violență domestică, nici măcar atunci când bărbații consumau alcool nu erau răutăcioși. Copiii erau împăcați, relaxați, liniștiți, mamele își vedeau de treaburile "casnice", timp de 2 ani și ceva cât a stat printre ei nu a văzut nicio mamă să aibă depresie postnatală cum se întâlnește deseori la mamele de partea celaltă a baricadei.
Asta cu adevărat ne lipsește nouă societății moderne: sentimentul de împlinire și pace cu noi înșine, conchide autoarea cărții.
Ca concept sau ca idee mi se pare inedită o așa "comparație", dar noi demult am depășit aceste momente sau situații, prea evoluată societatea ca să aplece capul și să se ia după viața simplă și pacifistă a acelui trib. Cred că ideea pe care o promovează autorea ar fi mai binevenită pentru psihologi, școlile de pediatrie, etc. Nu cred că oamenii de rând ar înțelege acest concept și l-ar urma cu sfințenie.
În primul rând, pentru că cartea e scrisă tare sofisticat, nu cred că mulți părinți care o vor citi o să aibă răbdare să o ducă până la capăt.
Pe de altă parte, mă bucur că odată cu trecerea timpul unele practici din moși strămoși se păstrează și în ziua de azi: să nu lași copilul să plângă singur, să-l porți în brațe, în spate oriunde cu tine, să-l hrănești la cerere și nu când vrei tu, afecțiunea , mângâierile să fie la ordinea zilei, să nu-i dădăcești, să-i lași să-și folosească instinctele așa cum știu ei mai bine, etc.
Până la urmă am rămas cam încurcată de cartea asta, dar e bine și așa :)
July 17, 2008
This book is about the happy social lives of the Yequana, a Stone Age tribe in the Venezuelan jungle, and the importance of what the author calls "the in-arms" experience. "In-arms" means quite simply that a mother or care-giver carry a baby from the moment it is born until the baby learns to creep, crawl and otherwise seek independence from his mother. Liedloff's premise is that babies who are unconditionally and constantly held and who participate, albeit passively from their mother's arms, in the world around them grow up to be happier and more secure people.
This is fine and I sure did my share of carrying with my two children, who are happy and secure enough for their age. I know plenty of moms who want to hold their babies but don't for fear of spoiling them, and it makes me feel sad - for the mom who is denying herself this lovely pleasure and for the baby who just wants to be with his mom.
Two things I did not like:
One, while the methods of the Yequana are admirable and probably for the better, they are virtually impossible to implement in our society for the simple fact that we tend to lack the benefit of living in a tribe. I'm sure it's much easier to carry your baby all day every day when you have someone else to help you do the housework and cooking. Vacuuming with a 20lb child strapped to you is not always my preferred way to spend the morning.
Two: The author says that all deviant behavior is due to lack of sufficient "in-arms" time as an infant. I can see that some babies who don't get their needs met might spend part or all of their adult life searching to complete or recreate that lovely time traveling on mommy's hip. What I don't believe is that the author should label homosexuality as deviant behavior and list homosexuals in the same category as drug and sex addicts, gamblers and run of the mill criminals. I was reading the 1977 copy of the book and perhaps the newest edition is a little more modern in its treatment of homosexuality. I can hardly believe people are gay because mommy didn't hold them enough.
Interesting read but a warning to mothers - no matter how much you are doing for your kids you stand the chance of feeling pretty guilty.
This is fine and I sure did my share of carrying with my two children, who are happy and secure enough for their age. I know plenty of moms who want to hold their babies but don't for fear of spoiling them, and it makes me feel sad - for the mom who is denying herself this lovely pleasure and for the baby who just wants to be with his mom.
Two things I did not like:
One, while the methods of the Yequana are admirable and probably for the better, they are virtually impossible to implement in our society for the simple fact that we tend to lack the benefit of living in a tribe. I'm sure it's much easier to carry your baby all day every day when you have someone else to help you do the housework and cooking. Vacuuming with a 20lb child strapped to you is not always my preferred way to spend the morning.
Two: The author says that all deviant behavior is due to lack of sufficient "in-arms" time as an infant. I can see that some babies who don't get their needs met might spend part or all of their adult life searching to complete or recreate that lovely time traveling on mommy's hip. What I don't believe is that the author should label homosexuality as deviant behavior and list homosexuals in the same category as drug and sex addicts, gamblers and run of the mill criminals. I was reading the 1977 copy of the book and perhaps the newest edition is a little more modern in its treatment of homosexuality. I can hardly believe people are gay because mommy didn't hold them enough.
Interesting read but a warning to mothers - no matter how much you are doing for your kids you stand the chance of feeling pretty guilty.
January 6, 2010
Once you read this book a lot of things about what we thought we knew about "human nature" become clear. It gives you hope for the species and it gives you something to do in regard to any mothers and infants you know right now.
I have heard vague stirrings about how babies should be kept in a sling, and have known that normal babies slept with the parents during most of human history but Liedloff spells out the rest of it so clearly and shows how this has affected our mental and physical and spiritual health as a species more clearly than I had thought it through. I always knew it was a mistake to have babies in hospitals and leave them in basinets alone right after birth but I did not realize how unnatural it really truly was.
I knew that animal mother would briefly leave the nest to pee or get a drink of water but the male be with the young or would come by with food for her or she would fast or snack quickly and stay with the babies as much as possible. Left alone the babies would chirp or howl and bring predators and she would instinctively avoid this at all costs.
Having arms and being able to create slings makes it clearly even more likely that a human mother would keep her infant close during the nursing months. If she left it alone or set it down it would cry and bring predators.
Jean Liedloff spent several years with native tribal people in the jungles of South America. At first she could not figure out why they were so happy, noncombative and noncompetitive. the children where sociable, cooperative and never fought. She realized that she had been so "mind blind" due to cultural biases that she could not see the obvious.
After watching the stone aged people and especially thier infants and comparing them to our own ridid, crying, colicky lonely infants She came to the conclusion that humans were not naturally competitive, greedy or uncooperative. "civilized humans where simply neurologically, and emotionally impaired by improper care from the moment of birth up through adulthood.
I have heard vague stirrings about how babies should be kept in a sling, and have known that normal babies slept with the parents during most of human history but Liedloff spells out the rest of it so clearly and shows how this has affected our mental and physical and spiritual health as a species more clearly than I had thought it through. I always knew it was a mistake to have babies in hospitals and leave them in basinets alone right after birth but I did not realize how unnatural it really truly was.
I knew that animal mother would briefly leave the nest to pee or get a drink of water but the male be with the young or would come by with food for her or she would fast or snack quickly and stay with the babies as much as possible. Left alone the babies would chirp or howl and bring predators and she would instinctively avoid this at all costs.
Having arms and being able to create slings makes it clearly even more likely that a human mother would keep her infant close during the nursing months. If she left it alone or set it down it would cry and bring predators.
Jean Liedloff spent several years with native tribal people in the jungles of South America. At first she could not figure out why they were so happy, noncombative and noncompetitive. the children where sociable, cooperative and never fought. She realized that she had been so "mind blind" due to cultural biases that she could not see the obvious.
After watching the stone aged people and especially thier infants and comparing them to our own ridid, crying, colicky lonely infants She came to the conclusion that humans were not naturally competitive, greedy or uncooperative. "civilized humans where simply neurologically, and emotionally impaired by improper care from the moment of birth up through adulthood.
August 24, 2019
Это конечно такое себе название - «Как вырастить ребёнка счастливым. Принцип преемственности». Не смотря на сверхбанальность тайтла, поддавшись рекомендациям, я все же прочитал эту книженцию, правда, уверенности ее советовать дальше нет. В книге очень много пафоса, как в любой популярной американской литературе, и при этом фактически в книге три основные идеи, которыми автор с нами делится. Кстати, автор ведь модель, бросившая ради этих истин свою карьеру (пусть читатель сам решает насколько это важна информация по теме книги или такой понт) и свалившая в джунгли, где она и наблюдала, как разные племена сильно иначе, чем мы, воспитывают своих детей:
1. Про континуум и что мы подсознательно знаем, как вести себя с детьми, но вынуждены воспитывать сильно неправильно, как это делали наши родители с нами / как в книгах нашей слепой в этом плане цивилизации. Автор смело и цинично ржёт с того, как отжигают слепые современные родители, заморачивающиеся за каждую мелочь в интерьере детских спален, но в ноль упускающих континуум. Вот то ли дело индейцы племени Екуана :)
2. Физический контакт и его важность, прям Важность!
3. Доверять инстинктам детей, включая самосохранение.
Говорят, у многих мамок после прочтения разгорается чувство дичайшей вины перед их детьми. Может какая-то, например, могла б застрелиться?
И конечно вишенка на торте - мы все выросли в таких вот внутренне несчастных и неумелых взрослых именно из-за ошибок раннего воспитания. Ага.
Такая вот шляпа 200+ страниц.
«Книга, которая изменит мир к лучшему»
Уж конечно.
Я стал ещё лучше, берегись.
1. Про континуум и что мы подсознательно знаем, как вести себя с детьми, но вынуждены воспитывать сильно неправильно, как это делали наши родители с нами / как в книгах нашей слепой в этом плане цивилизации. Автор смело и цинично ржёт с того, как отжигают слепые современные родители, заморачивающиеся за каждую мелочь в интерьере детских спален, но в ноль упускающих континуум. Вот то ли дело индейцы племени Екуана :)
2. Физический контакт и его важность, прям Важность!
3. Доверять инстинктам детей, включая самосохранение.
Говорят, у многих мамок после прочтения разгорается чувство дичайшей вины перед их детьми. Может какая-то, например, могла б застрелиться?
И конечно вишенка на торте - мы все выросли в таких вот внутренне несчастных и неумелых взрослых именно из-за ошибок раннего воспитания. Ага.
Такая вот шляпа 200+ страниц.
«Книга, которая изменит мир к лучшему»
Уж конечно.
Я стал ещё лучше, берегись.
August 22, 2021
I like the basic concept here, but you can read other reviews to learn why it's problematic in a lot of ways. I think the main problem with the book is not the concept, but the way it is presented as fact when it's really just a journal or stream of consciousness by the author...presented as an "ultimate truth" with very little citation to back anything up. Even her anecdotal evidence feels made up sometimes, or at the very least not appropriately elaborated.
This is kind of a take what resonates, leave the rest behind type read for me. I enjoyed the beginning immensely and honestly would love to read more about the author's travels and time with the Yequana rather than feeling judged for using diapers. I also had a laugh when one of her "personality types" that can be explained away by the continuum concept was the traveler, which she falls right into herself. I get the point of the continuum concept and think there are some great takeaways (like babywearing, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, don't "cry it out" etc) but ultimately I think she boils her concept down too far and it loses practicality. It's almost as if Liedloff believes individuals should not have personalities, and anything deviating from the humble, quiet norm she paints is a condition needing to be cured.
Ultimately this is an opinion piece that should be read more like a conversation among friends than a scientific approach to parenting and human nature.
This is kind of a take what resonates, leave the rest behind type read for me. I enjoyed the beginning immensely and honestly would love to read more about the author's travels and time with the Yequana rather than feeling judged for using diapers. I also had a laugh when one of her "personality types" that can be explained away by the continuum concept was the traveler, which she falls right into herself. I get the point of the continuum concept and think there are some great takeaways (like babywearing, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, don't "cry it out" etc) but ultimately I think she boils her concept down too far and it loses practicality. It's almost as if Liedloff believes individuals should not have personalities, and anything deviating from the humble, quiet norm she paints is a condition needing to be cured.
Ultimately this is an opinion piece that should be read more like a conversation among friends than a scientific approach to parenting and human nature.
November 10, 2010
I really enjoyed reading this book. I've always been interested in evolution and the well being of our concious self and bodies through understanding evolution. Jean Liedloff lived with Stone Age Indians in South America for 3 years and studyed the way they raised their children and the effects this had on the childrens development. Not having chlidren myself I obviously have a different point of view, but I do belive we are flawed in some of our theorys about how we raise our children. For example, that its normal that we feed our babies until they spit up or have to burb. The only thing I can compare this to is the stone age diet, I've studied this and followed this and It does make a huge difference on health and well being. Western Civilization brings great invention, but takes us away from living a healthy life style. Living in Europe a couple years, I did notice more mothers seem to follow closer to these concepts then American mothers. I haven't felt so strongly about a book in awhile, but again I'm not a mother so its from a different perspective.
November 29, 2021
You have to keep in mind that this was written in the... 70's? I think? A psychotherapist lived with amerindian communities in the amazon in the 60s, communities that struck her as shockingly psychologically healthy and with very different child rearing habits than those common in The States.
However, despite the book's issues and my misgivings, the book was overwhelmingly in-line with my intuitions on how i'll try to raise my soon-to-be child.
My copy is full of underlinings and notations from myself, even if id cringe for someone to see many of them.
It was easy to read, if not sometimes very painful.
I'd be extremely curious for some distillation and clarification of these ideas by current anthropologists and child psychologists.
However, despite the book's issues and my misgivings, the book was overwhelmingly in-line with my intuitions on how i'll try to raise my soon-to-be child.
My copy is full of underlinings and notations from myself, even if id cringe for someone to see many of them.
It was easy to read, if not sometimes very painful.
I'd be extremely curious for some distillation and clarification of these ideas by current anthropologists and child psychologists.
June 26, 2015
O carte care, desi a fost scrisa cu mult timp in urma, este de foarte mare actualitate si ridica probleme reale ale societatii de azi dar mai ales ne ofera tuturor o cale de iesire...trebuie doar sa o urmam si sa fim consecventi si mai ales sa ni ne lasam infranti de cliseele de la tot pasul.
December 29, 2018
My fav quotes (not a review):
-Page 11 |
"A child seeks information about what is done and not done, so if he breaks a plate he needs to see some anger or sadness at its destruction but not a withdrawal of esteem for him – as though he were not also angry or sad at having let it slip and resolving on his own initiative to be more careful."
-Page 34 |
"The design of each individual was a reflection of the experience it expected to encounter. The experience it could tolerate was defined by the circumstances to which its antecedents had adapted."
-Page 34 |
"If one wants to know what is correct for any species, one must know the inherent expectations of that species."
-Page 76 |
"First and foremost, there is the teddy bear or similar soft doll ‘to sleep with’. It is meant to give the infant a sense of constant companionship. The eventual fierce attachment to them that is sometimes formed is viewed as a charming bit of juvenile whimsy rather than a manifestation of acute deprivation in a child reduced to clinging to an inanimate object in its hunger for a companion who will not desert him."
-Page 77 |
"I thought I was ‘saving her trouble’. But I did not then understand the continuum. She followed her strongest impulse first and ate the food. As that impulse diminished with satiety, the next strongest came to the fore. She wished to hunt. Conditions were not conducive to the hunt, as the banana was naked and visible. Her solution was to set the scene herself, then perform the hunt."
-Page 78 |
"The object of life is life; the object of well-being is to encourage the behaviour that produces the sense of well-being."
-Page 87 |
"Another time it was a man of about twenty: I was doing my best to excise the beginnings of gangrene from his toe. The pain must have been excruciating. While offering no resistance to my clearing the wound with a hunting knife, he wept without any sign of restraint on his wife’s lap. She, like the little boy’s mother, was completely relaxed, not putting herself in her husband’s place at all but serenely accessible, as he buried his face in her body when the pain was greatest or rolled his head from side to side on her lap as he sobbed. The eventual presence of about half the village at the scene did not appear to affect any effort towards either self-control or dramatization."
-Page 89 |
"Among the Yequana the attitude of the mother or caretaker of a baby is relaxed, attentive to some other occupation than baby-minding but receptive at all times to a visit from the crawling or creeping adventurer."
-Page 89 |
"She does not initiate the contacts nor contribute to them except in a passive way. It is the baby who seeks her out and shows her by his behaviour what he wants. She complies fully and willingly but does not add anything more. He is the active, she the passive agent in all their dealings; he comes to her to sleep when he is tired, to be fed when he is hungry. His explorations of the wide world are counterpointed and reinforced by his resort to her and by his sense of her constancy while he is away."
-Page 89 |
"He neither demands nor receives her full attention, for he has no store of longings, no ancient hungers, to gnaw at his devotion to the here and now. Consistent with the economical character of nature, he wants no more than he needs. When he goes about on hands and knees, a baby can travel at a fair speed."
-Page 92 |
"the object of a child’s activities, after all, is the development of self-reliance. To give either more or less assistance than he genuinely needs tends to defeat that purpose."
-Page 92 |
"Caretaking, like assistance, is by request only. Feeding to nourish the body and cuddling to nourish the soul are neither proffered nor withheld but are always available, simply and gracefully, as a matter of course. Above all, the child is respected as a good thing in all respects. There is no concept of a ‘bad child’, nor, conversely, any distinction made about ‘good children’."
-Page 94 |
"A child’s curiosity and desire to do things himself are the definition of his capacity to learn without sacrificing any part of his whole development. Guidance can only heighten certain abilities at the expense of others, but nothing can heighten the full spectrum of his capabilities beyond its in-built limits."
-Page 96 |
"A simple suggestion like ‘Don’t go where I can’t see you!’ said with a note of apprehension (expectation) causes much traffic in lost-child departments"
-Page 121
"The notion that fulfilment, the feeling of rightness, comes through competing and winning is an extension of what Freud called ‘sibling rivalry’. It seemed to him that all of us had to cope with jealousy and hatred of our brothers and sisters, who threatened our access to our mothers. But Freud had no undeprived people in his acquaintance. If he had had the opportunity to know the Yequana, he would have found that the idea of competing and winning, as an end in itself, is quite unknown to them. It cannot therefore be considered an intrinsic part of the human personality. When a baby has had all he needs of experience in his mother’s arms and parts with her of his own free will, it makes him able to welcome with no difficulty the advent of a new baby in the place he has voluntarily left. There is no ground for rivalry when nothing he requires is being usurped."
-Page 121
"They have no competitive games, though there are games. There is wrestling, but there is no championship, only a series of matches between pairs of men. The constant practice of archery is always aimed at achieving excellence but never in competition with other boys, nor is hunting a competitive matter among men. Their emotional life does not require it, so their culture does not provide it. It is difficult for us to imagine life without competition – as difficult as it is to imagine feeling right just as we are."
-Page 141
"We are living lives for which our evolution did not equip us, and we are also handicapped, in our attempts to cope, by faculties crippled by personal deprivation."
-Page 142
"Our standard of living rises without bringing up our standard of well-being, or quality of life, except on rare occasions, usually at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, where such matters as hunger and cold still have reality as factors in the loss of well-being."
-Page 11 |
"A child seeks information about what is done and not done, so if he breaks a plate he needs to see some anger or sadness at its destruction but not a withdrawal of esteem for him – as though he were not also angry or sad at having let it slip and resolving on his own initiative to be more careful."
-Page 34 |
"The design of each individual was a reflection of the experience it expected to encounter. The experience it could tolerate was defined by the circumstances to which its antecedents had adapted."
-Page 34 |
"If one wants to know what is correct for any species, one must know the inherent expectations of that species."
-Page 76 |
"First and foremost, there is the teddy bear or similar soft doll ‘to sleep with’. It is meant to give the infant a sense of constant companionship. The eventual fierce attachment to them that is sometimes formed is viewed as a charming bit of juvenile whimsy rather than a manifestation of acute deprivation in a child reduced to clinging to an inanimate object in its hunger for a companion who will not desert him."
-Page 77 |
"I thought I was ‘saving her trouble’. But I did not then understand the continuum. She followed her strongest impulse first and ate the food. As that impulse diminished with satiety, the next strongest came to the fore. She wished to hunt. Conditions were not conducive to the hunt, as the banana was naked and visible. Her solution was to set the scene herself, then perform the hunt."
-Page 78 |
"The object of life is life; the object of well-being is to encourage the behaviour that produces the sense of well-being."
-Page 87 |
"Another time it was a man of about twenty: I was doing my best to excise the beginnings of gangrene from his toe. The pain must have been excruciating. While offering no resistance to my clearing the wound with a hunting knife, he wept without any sign of restraint on his wife’s lap. She, like the little boy’s mother, was completely relaxed, not putting herself in her husband’s place at all but serenely accessible, as he buried his face in her body when the pain was greatest or rolled his head from side to side on her lap as he sobbed. The eventual presence of about half the village at the scene did not appear to affect any effort towards either self-control or dramatization."
-Page 89 |
"Among the Yequana the attitude of the mother or caretaker of a baby is relaxed, attentive to some other occupation than baby-minding but receptive at all times to a visit from the crawling or creeping adventurer."
-Page 89 |
"She does not initiate the contacts nor contribute to them except in a passive way. It is the baby who seeks her out and shows her by his behaviour what he wants. She complies fully and willingly but does not add anything more. He is the active, she the passive agent in all their dealings; he comes to her to sleep when he is tired, to be fed when he is hungry. His explorations of the wide world are counterpointed and reinforced by his resort to her and by his sense of her constancy while he is away."
-Page 89 |
"He neither demands nor receives her full attention, for he has no store of longings, no ancient hungers, to gnaw at his devotion to the here and now. Consistent with the economical character of nature, he wants no more than he needs. When he goes about on hands and knees, a baby can travel at a fair speed."
-Page 92 |
"the object of a child’s activities, after all, is the development of self-reliance. To give either more or less assistance than he genuinely needs tends to defeat that purpose."
-Page 92 |
"Caretaking, like assistance, is by request only. Feeding to nourish the body and cuddling to nourish the soul are neither proffered nor withheld but are always available, simply and gracefully, as a matter of course. Above all, the child is respected as a good thing in all respects. There is no concept of a ‘bad child’, nor, conversely, any distinction made about ‘good children’."
-Page 94 |
"A child’s curiosity and desire to do things himself are the definition of his capacity to learn without sacrificing any part of his whole development. Guidance can only heighten certain abilities at the expense of others, but nothing can heighten the full spectrum of his capabilities beyond its in-built limits."
-Page 96 |
"A simple suggestion like ‘Don’t go where I can’t see you!’ said with a note of apprehension (expectation) causes much traffic in lost-child departments"
-Page 121
"The notion that fulfilment, the feeling of rightness, comes through competing and winning is an extension of what Freud called ‘sibling rivalry’. It seemed to him that all of us had to cope with jealousy and hatred of our brothers and sisters, who threatened our access to our mothers. But Freud had no undeprived people in his acquaintance. If he had had the opportunity to know the Yequana, he would have found that the idea of competing and winning, as an end in itself, is quite unknown to them. It cannot therefore be considered an intrinsic part of the human personality. When a baby has had all he needs of experience in his mother’s arms and parts with her of his own free will, it makes him able to welcome with no difficulty the advent of a new baby in the place he has voluntarily left. There is no ground for rivalry when nothing he requires is being usurped."
-Page 121
"They have no competitive games, though there are games. There is wrestling, but there is no championship, only a series of matches between pairs of men. The constant practice of archery is always aimed at achieving excellence but never in competition with other boys, nor is hunting a competitive matter among men. Their emotional life does not require it, so their culture does not provide it. It is difficult for us to imagine life without competition – as difficult as it is to imagine feeling right just as we are."
-Page 141
"We are living lives for which our evolution did not equip us, and we are also handicapped, in our attempts to cope, by faculties crippled by personal deprivation."
-Page 142
"Our standard of living rises without bringing up our standard of well-being, or quality of life, except on rare occasions, usually at the bottom of the socio-economic scale, where such matters as hunger and cold still have reality as factors in the loss of well-being."
November 17, 2024
Absolut lesenswert für ALLE Eltern! Lässt uns wieder auf unsere Instinkte vertrauen und weggehen von der unfassbar unnatürlichen Art, wie wir unsere Kinder heute erziehen. Gemeinsam mit "Hunter, Gather, Patent" von Michaeleen Doucleff absolute Empfehlung zum Thema "artgerechtes" Leben für Kinder und Erwachsene.
Natürlich kann man nickt alles in dem Buch für bare Münze nehmen (Esoterik, Homophobie), und enttäuschend fand ich auch, dass Liedloff fast nur aufs erste Lebensjahr eingeht statt auf die ganze Kindheit. Dennoch glaube ich, dass ihre Ideen und Beobachtungen großteils eine sehr große Hilfe sein können.
Natürlich kann man nickt alles in dem Buch für bare Münze nehmen (Esoterik, Homophobie), und enttäuschend fand ich auch, dass Liedloff fast nur aufs erste Lebensjahr eingeht statt auf die ganze Kindheit. Dennoch glaube ich, dass ihre Ideen und Beobachtungen großteils eine sehr große Hilfe sein können.
June 12, 2019
Лучше всего конечно читать эту книгу до родов, а то есть риск потом расстроиться, что что-то делал не так. Плюс, нужно делать поправку на то, что книга написана в 1975. Научности в ней ноль и можно придраться к необъективности наблюдений автора, но тем не менее, Идея, которую она несёт в себе, настолько важна и естественна, что на недостатки в рассуждениях автора можно закрыть глаза. Я бы воспринимала эту книгу как авторское эссе-размышление, которое тем не менее полезно всем родителям и, как следствие, их детям, будущим или настоящим.
January 10, 2026
I love the continuum philosophy and much of it is echoed in other parenting books like Hunt Gather Parent. This book exudes empathy for the infant and toddler and I much enjoyed the accounts of the Yequana people.
Taking one star off from the overly authoritative tone. There is a lot of bias in describing how and why people behave a certain way that is unsubstantiated and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Sometimes it goes overboard but overall a great primer on the subject of parenting informed by traditional societies. A more well rounded book on the subject is them e previously mentioned.
Taking one star off from the overly authoritative tone. There is a lot of bias in describing how and why people behave a certain way that is unsubstantiated and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Sometimes it goes overboard but overall a great primer on the subject of parenting informed by traditional societies. A more well rounded book on the subject is them e previously mentioned.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 364 reviews